^  -<  'iir/  i 


i|W 

''  '*5.'i .-  jS'v#^a'.»4i  s«  “®Si 


:,A-:v  i'.i'^-vf.^iK 


'i.'VV  .‘?i'JtI''*lv-*' 


-VA 


S/Vj  - 


/"af^  .i^T’ 

'".r-  ^ 


American  Council,  Institute  of  Pacific  Relations 


The  Passing  of 
Extraterritoriality  in  Siam 

Francis  Bowes  Sayre 


These  articles  are  reprinted  from  the  Atlantic  Monthly,  November,  1927,  and  the 
American  Journal  of  International  Law,  January,  1928,  at  the  request  of  the 
Research  Committee  of  the  American  Council  of  the  Institute  of  Pacific  Relations. 


THE  RUMFORD  PRESS 
CONCORD,  N.  H. 


CONTENTS 


Siam’s  Fight  for  Sovereignty .  1 

The  Passing  of  ExtraterritoriaHty  in  Siam .  19 

Treaties  and  Negotiations  with  Great  Britain 

Jurisdiction .  38 

Protocol .  41 

Commerce  and  Navigation .  43 

Notes .  54 

Arbitration .  59 


'  s- 


V 


A-' 


i 

i' 

i3 


‘I 

4' 


■  4 "  , , 

.V  '  ^ 
^  ■ 
T.\ 
■4'' 


I 


SIAM’S  FIGHT  FOR  SOVEREIGNTY 
By  Francis  Bowes  Sayre 

“Siam’s  Fight  for  Sovereignty/’  through  the  courtesy  of  Mr.  Sayre,  is  reprinted  with 
the  consent  of  the  publishers  from  the  Atlantic  Monthly  of  November,  1927,  and  “The 
Passing  of  Extraterritoriality  in  Siam,”  with  documentary  material,  through  the  courtesy 
of  Mr.  Sayre,  is  reprinted  with  the  consent  of  the  pubUshers  from  the  American  Journal 
OF  International  Law  of  Januar}^,  1928,  both  at  the  request  of  the  Research  Committee 
of  the  American  Council  of  the  Institute  of  Pacific  Relations. 

I 

Since  Marco  Polo  first  told  of  the  far  lands  of  Cathay,  one  trading  nation 
after  another  has  sought  through  peaceful  means  or  through  force  of  arms 
to  capture  the  coveted  trade  of  the  Orient.  The  efforts  of  British  merchants 
to  force  their  way  into  China  culminated  in  the  Opium  War  and  the  Treaty 
of  Nanking  in  1842,  which  opened  up  the  more  important  Chinese  coast 
cities  to  foreign  trade;  additional  treaties  speedily  followed,  imposing  on 
China  the  system  of  extraterritoriality  for  the  protection  of  Western  mer¬ 
chants.  In  1853  Admiral  Perry’s  dramatic  appearance  in  Japanese  waters 
marked  the  beginning  of  Western  trade  in  Japan;  and  soon  thereafter  West¬ 
ern  treaties  were  made  with  the  Shogun  imposing  a  similar  system  of  extra¬ 
territoriality  upon  the  newly  awakened  Japanese  nation. 

Even  Siam,  hidden  away  between  India  and  China,  was  not  overlooked. 
In  1855  Great  Britain,  in  order  to  foster  its  growing  trade  with  Siam,  per¬ 
suaded  the  Siamese  King  to  sign  a  new  treaty  which  was  destined  to  have 
profound  and  far-reaching  effects  upon  the  development  of  his  country.  The 
treaty  required  that  ‘‘all  British  subjects  coming  to  Siam  shall  receive  from 
the  Siamese  Government  full  protection  and  assistance  to  enable  them  to  re¬ 
side  in  Siam  in  all  security  and  trade  with  every  facility,”  and  provided  that 
all  British  subjects  in  Siam  should  be  exempt  from  the  jurisdiction  of  Siamese 
courts  and  that  Siam  should  never  raise  its  import  tariff  on  English  goods 
beyond  three  per  cent.  Neither  of  these  provisions  was  felt  to  be  burden¬ 
some  at  the  time;  consular  jurisdiction  seemed  a  measure  wisely  framed  to 
meet  the  exigencies  of  a  day  when  Siamese  courts  knew  nothing  of  Western 
justice  or  Western  ways,  and  a  three-per-cent  import  tariff  was  then  amply 
sufficient  to  provide  for  the  simple  needs  of  the  undeveloped  state.  But  un¬ 
happily  the  negotiators  of  this  one-sided  agreement  had  neglected  to  insert 
any  time  limit  for  the  duration  of  the  treaty;  nor  was  any  method  provided 
for  abrogating  or  modifying  its  provisions  except  with  the  consent  of  both 
parties. 

What  Siam  had  granted  to  Great  Britain  she  could  not  well  refuse  to 
other  powerful  states.  Between  1856  and  1870  similar  treaties  were  made 
with  the  United  States,  France,  Denmark,  Portugal,  the  Netherlands,  Ger¬ 
many,  Sweden  and  Norway,  Belgium,  Italy,  Austria-Hungary,  and  Spain. 

1 


2 


All  of  these  were  closely  modeled  on  the  British  treaty;  all  were  without  time 
limit.  The  restrictions  were  irrevocable  and  eternal. 

During  the  last  third  of  the  nineteenth  century  Siam  underwent  a  re¬ 
markable  transformation.  Under  the  intelligent  and  able  leadership  of 
King  Chulalongkorn,  railroads  were  built,  telegraphic  and  mail  communica¬ 
tion  with  the  outside  world  established,  irrigation  projects  undertaken, 
slavery  and  gambling  abolished.  Western  education  introduced,  the  entire 
government  reorganized  and  modern  ministries  of  state  created,  an  adequate 
system  of  law  courts  established,  and  a  royal  commission  appointed  to 
prepare  codes  of  law  based  upon  the  best  Western  models.  By  the  opening 
of  the  twentieth  century  Siam  had  become  a  modern  state  aquiver  with 
Western  progress.  Internationally  she  was  prepared  to  take  her  place  in  the 
Family  of  Western  Nations. 

With  her  profound  transformation  the  conditions  under  which  the  early 
treaties  had  been  made  were  for  the  most  part  swept  away;  but  the  treaty 
restrictions  remained  unchangeable.  Not  only  remained — through  a  series 
of  harsh  interpretations  their  provisions  were  rendered  still  more  onerous. 
The  clauses  providing  that  foreigners  should  be  tried  by  their  own  consuls, 
originally  designed  for  the  mutual  convenience  of  both  foreigners  and  Sia¬ 
mese,  were  interpreted  so  as  to  give  foreigners  exemption  not  only  from 
Siamese  courts  but  also  from  any  Siamese  legislation  which  was  unacceptable 
to  foreign  wishes.  Even  so,  had  the  exemptions  been  confined,  as  they  were 
originally  intended,  to  Europeans,  the  situation  would  have  been  more 
tolerable.  Unfortunately  the  Western  nations  insisted  on  including  within 
the  exemptions  many  thousands  of  Asiatics,  inhabitants  of  European  colonies 
in  Asia,  and  therefore  in  point  of  law  European  subjects.  The  inclusion  of 
these  native  races,  not  bred  in  a  European  civilization,  was  without  inherent 
reason  or  sound  justification,  and  its  tendency  was  to  arouse  in  many 
Asiatics  resident  in  Siam  a  feeling  that  Siamese  law  could  be  disregarded 
with  impunity.  Thus  Mohammedans  from  Malaya,  Tamils  from  India, 
native  races  from  the  island  of  Java,  Chinese  from  the  Portuguese  Colony 
of  Macao,  Burmese,  Cambodians,  Annamites,  all  gained  exemption  from 
Siamese  courts  and  to  a  certain  extent  from  Siamese  law,  even  though 
dwelling  permanently  in  Siam.  So  convenient  and  profitable  did  this  ex¬ 
emption  become  that  Chinese  and  even  in  some  cases  Siamese  began  to 
apply  for  and  obtain  enrollment  in  the  foreign  legations  as  proteges’’  of 
the  treaty  nations. 

Thus  excluded  from  administering  law  and  punishment  to  an  ever  widen¬ 
ing  circle  of  foreign  subjects  and  proteges,  Siam  began  to  find  that  no  im¬ 
portant  law  directly  affecting  European  subjects  or  proteges  could  be  put 
into  force  without  first  gaining  the  consent  of  the  foreign  offices  in  Europe. 
When  Siam  passed  a  General  Education  Law  providing  for  universal  com¬ 
pulsory  education,  a  certain  European  nation  refused  to  accept  it  because 
it  offended  the  susceptibilities  of  its  Mohammedan  subjects  in  that  it  com- 


3 


pelled  girls  to  go  to  school  during  the  sacred  month  of  Ramadan,  and  as  a 
result,  with  respect  to  all  such  children,  the  law  could  not  be  enforced. 
Similarly  the  law  for  the  protection  of  trade-marks  has  remained  since  its 
promulgation  a  dead  letter  because  infringements  were  found  to  be  chiefly 
by  foreigners,  and  Siam  could  not  induce  all  the  Treaty  Powers  to  accept 
it.  The  subjects  of  one  of  them  were  profiting  too  greatly  from  its  infringe¬ 
ment.  Even  laws  so  obviously  desirable  as  proper  police  regulations  for 
the  correction  of  abuses  in  Bangkok  often  could  not  be  enacted  or  could 
be  enacted  only  after  the  most  discouraging  delays  because  of  the  extreme 
difficulty  of  winning  the  unconditional  approval  of  a  dozen  different  foreign 
legations. 

The  treaty  exemptions,  furthermore,  furnished  a  ready  refuge  for  wrong¬ 
doers.  If  Wu  Sung  had  arranged  for  a  particularly  valuable  consignment  of 
opium  to  be  smuggled  in  across  the  northern  frontier,  or  if  Abdul  Razim 
desired  to  run  a  gambling  shop  without  risk  of  police  interference,  each  would 
arm  himself  with  foreign  papers  as  a  prudent  man  should. 

The  financial  provisions  of  the  early  treaties  were  equally  intolerable.  The 
pushing  of  widespread  education  demands  the  expensive  training  and  paying 
of  thousands  of  teachers.  The  development  and  stimulation  of  the  agricul¬ 
tural  resources  of  an  undeveloped  country  demand  large  and  increasing 
expenditures.  An  efficient  administration  of  justice  demands  highly  trained 
and  adequately  paid  judges.  Policing  becomes  more  expensive  as  the  amount 
of  police  regulation  increases.  Progress  costs  money.  It  began  to  be  evident 
that  Siam^s  continued  progress  could  be  just  as  effectively  menaced  by  the 
inability  of  the  state  to  finance  further  works  of  improvement  because  of  the 
fiscal  restrictions  of  the  early  treaties  as  by  its  inability  to  assume  jurisdiction 
over  foreigners.  If  Siam’s  progress  was  to  continue,  it  became  clear  that 
the  old  treaties  must  go. 

Yet  there  seemed  to  be  no  possible  way.  Suggestions,  requests,  entreaties, 
brought  no  results.  Since  the  treaties,  written  in  the  interests  of  the  traders, 
contained  no  time  limit  and  no  termination  clause,  Siam  was  helpless. 
Japan  had  finally  succeeded  in  freeing  herself  from  very  similar  treaty  re¬ 
strictions  by  proving  the  possibilities  of  her  military  power  in  the  Chino- 
Japanese  War.  Siam  did  not  possess  the  military  resources  to  make  such  a 
solution  possible,  even  were  it  desirable. 

II 

In  1907  Siam  had  succeeded  in  obtaining  from  France  a  treaty  providing 
that  French  Asiatic  subjects  and  proteges  should  become  subject  to  the 
jurisdiction  of  Siamese  courts.  But  for  this  concession  a  heavy  price  was 
paid.  Siam  had  to  agree  that  henceforth  French  Asiatic  subjects  and 
proteges  throughout  the  whole  of  Siam  should  be  entitled  to  all  the  rights  and 
privileges  enjoyed  by  Siamese  subjects.  Furthermore,  French  consuls  were 
given  the  right  to  evoke  from  Siamese  courts  and  to  try  themselves  all  cases 


2 


All  of  these  were  closely  modeled  on  the  British  treaty;  all  were  without  time 
limit.  The  restrictions  were  irrevocable  and  eternal. 

During  the  last  third  of  the  nineteenth  century  Siam  underwent  a  re¬ 
markable  transformation.  Under  the  intelligent  and  able  leadership  of 
King  Chulalongkorn,  railroads  were  built,  telegraphic  and  mail  communica¬ 
tion  with  the  outside  world  established,  irrigation  projects  undertaken, 
slavery  and  gambling  abolished.  Western  education  introduced,  the  entire 
government  reorganized  and  modern  ministries  of  state  created,  an  adequate 
system  of  law  courts  established,  and  a  royal  commission  appointed  to 
prepare  codes  of  law  based  upon  the  best  Western  models.  By  the  opening 
of  the  twentieth  century  Siam  had  become  a  modern  state  aquiver  with 
Western  progress.  Internationally  she  was  prepared  to  take  her  place  in  the 
Family  of  Western  Nations. 

With  her  profound  transformation  the  conditions  under  which  the  early 
treaties  had  been  made  were  for  the  most  part  swept  away;  but  the  treaty 
restrictions  remained  unchangeable.  Not  only  remained — through  a  series 
of  harsh  interpretations  their  provisions  were  rendered  still  more  onerous. 
The  clauses  providing  that  foreigners  should  be  tried  by  their  own  consuls, 
originally  designed  for  the  mutual  convenience  of  both  foreigners  and  Sia¬ 
mese,  were  interpreted  so  as  to  give  foreigners  exemption  not  only  from 
Siamese  courts  but  also  from  any  Siamese  legislation  which  was  unacceptable 
to  foreign  wishes.  Even  so,  had  the  exemptions  been  confined,  as  they  were 
originally  intended,  to  Europeans,  the  situation  would  have  been  more 
tolerable.  Unfortunately  the  Western  nations  insisted  on  including  within 
the  exemptions  many  thousands  of  Asiatics,  inhabitants  of  European  colonies 
in  Asia,  and  therefore  in  point  of  law  European  subjects.  The  inclusion  of 
these  native  races,  not  bred  in  a  European  civilization,  was  without  inherent 
reason  or  sound  justification,  and  its  tendency  was  to  arouse  in  many 
Asiatics  resident  in  Siam  a  feeling  that  Siamese  law  could  be  disregarded 
with  impunity.  Thus  Mohammedans  from  Malaya,  Tamils  from  India, 
native  races  from  the  island  of  Java,  Chinese  from  the  Portuguese  Colony 
of  Macao,  Burmese,  Cambodians,  Annamites,  all  gained  exemption  from 
Siamese  courts  and  to  a  certain  extent  from  Siamese  law,  even  though 
dwelling  permanently  in  Siam.  So  convenient  and  profitable  did  this  ex¬ 
emption  become  that  Chinese  and  even  in  some  cases  Siamese  began  to 
apply  for  and  obtain  enrollment  in  the  foreign  legations  as  “proteges’’  of 
the  treaty  nations. 

Thus  excluded  from  administering  law  and  punishment  to  an  ever  widen¬ 
ing  circle  of  foreign  subjects  and  proteges,  Siam  began  to  find  that  no  im¬ 
portant  law  directly  affecting  European  subjects  or  proteges  could  be  put 
into  force  without  first  gaining  the  consent  of  the  foreign  offices  in  Europe. 
When  Siam  passed  a  General  Education  Law  providing  for  universal  com¬ 
pulsory  education,  a  certain  European  nation  refused  to  accept  it  because 
it  offended  the  susceptibilities  of  its  Mohammedan  subjects  in  that  it  com- 


5 


without  price.”  It  was  the  new  note  in  international  diplomacy;  justice  and 
international  right  meant  more  than  empty  words. 

In  1920  President  Wilson  gave  to  Siam  the  treaty  which  he  had  promised. 
Without  compensation  and  without  secret  understanding  of  any  sort, 
America,  recognizing  the  efficient  administration  of  justice  which  Siam 
had  achieved,  surrendered  all  rights  of  extraterritoriality,  provided  only 
that  the  American  consul  should  have  the  right,  up  to  five  years  after  the 
promulgation  of  the  last  of  the  Siamese  codes  of  law,  to  evoke  out  of  the 
Siamese  courts  any  case  involving  American  citizens  should  this  seem 
necessary  in  the  interests  of  justice.  Although  as  a  matter  of  fact  the  right 
of  evocation  under  the  American  treaty  has  never  been  exercised,  this  wise 
provision  furnished  to  American  citizens  a  guaranty  against  possible  judicial 
abuse  and  one  which  Siam  could  glady  give  because  of  her  confidence  in 
her  own  courts.  Furthermore,  the  new  treaty  abrogated  the  earlier  Ameri¬ 
can  treaty  of  1856  in  its  entirety;  and  America,  recognizing  Siam’s  right  to 
fiscal  autonomy,  agreed  that  Siam  should  have  the  right  to  impose  any  tariff 
she  pleased  against  American  goods,  provided  that  all  the  other  Treaty 
Powers  would  agree  to  similar  provisions  without  compensation  or  price. 
The  new  treaty  was  made  terminable  after  a  ten-year  period  upon  one  year’s 
notice  given  by  either  party,  and  it  was  expressly  provided  that  such  termina¬ 
tion  would  not  revive  the  former  treaty.  Through  America  led  the  path 
to  freedom. 


Ill 

After  the  American  treaty  had  been  signed,  Siam  again  approached  Great 
Britain  and  France  and  requested  each  to  follow  America’s  lead.  Great 
Britain  replied  that  until  the  other  Powers  had  gone  as  far  as  she  had  in  the 
treaty  of  1909  any  application  for  further  treaty  revision  ‘‘would  appear  to  be 
premature.”  France  made  favorable  rephes,  but  little  seemed  to  come  of 
them.  Three  years  passed  with  the  goal  apparently  no  nearer.  A  new 
treaty  with  France  involved  Siam’s  relations  with  her  Eastern  neighbor, 
French  Indo-China;  and  the  difficulties  of  the  problem  were  increased  by  the 
political  situation  in  Hanoi  and  by  France’s  anxiety  not  to  give  offense 
to  Indo-Chinese  susceptibilities.  Ultimately  it  was  agreed  that  problems 
concerning  Indo-China  alone  should  be  excluded  from  the  main  French 
treaty  and  should  form  the  subject  of  a  separate  French  convention  nego¬ 
tiated  directly  between  Bangkok  and  Hanoi.  The  Quai  d’Orsay  then 
placed  the  negotiations  for  the  new  French  treaty  in  the  hands  of  the  French 
Minister  to  Bangkok,  a  forward-looking  man  thoroughly  conversant  with 
Indo-Chinese  opinion.  After  his  arrival  in  Bangkok  early  in  1924  negotia¬ 
tions  were  pushed  in  earnest. 

In  the  meantime  the  system  of  extraterritoriality  in  practice  seemed’ 
more  and  more  unjustified  and  vexatious.  As  a  result  of  the  war,  Germany 
and  Austria  had  indeed  lost  their  treaty  rights;  but  ten  European  Powers, 


6 


deaf  to  every  plea,  still  insisted  on  their  legal  rights,  and  unless  Siam  could 
persuade  each  in  turn  without  price  or  compensatory  benefit  to  surrender 
them,  no  feasible  way  of  escape  lay  open.  It  seemed  clear  that  it  would 
be  impossible  to  accomplish  such  a  task  through  ordinary  methods;  the 
only  practicable  road  to  success,  if  success  were  possible  at  all,  lay  through 
direct  personal  work  in  the  various  foreign  offices  in  Europe.  Because  of 
the  unavoidable  ignorance  of  responsible  officials  in  European  foreign  offices 
as  to  actual  conditions  in  Siam,  and  the  natural  disinclination  of  European 
representatives  living  in  Bangkok  to  surrender  existing  privileges,  long¬ 
distance  negotiations  at  Bangkok  would  block  success  at  the  very  outset. 

These  ideas  had  the  active  support  of  the  able  and  energetic  Siamese 
Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs,  Prince  Traidos  Prabandh,  a  man  of  wide 
diplomatic  experience  in  both  Europe  and  America.  King  Rama  VI  gra¬ 
ciously  entrusted  the  fortunes  of  this  project,  so  vital  to  Siam,  to  the  keeping 
of  the  Adviser  in  Foreign  Affairs,  who,  arm.ed  with  a  roving  commission,  was 
to  sail  from  Bangkok  in  the  autumn  of  1924  and,  in  conjunction  with  Siam^s 
diplomatic  agents  in  each  country,  to  spend  the  ensuing  year  seeking  to 
convince  one  after  another  of  the  foreign  offices  of  Europe  of  the  wisdom 
of  giving  up  their  existing  rights  in  Siam. 

It  was  our  great  hope  that  the  French  negotiations  could  be  brought 
to  a  successful  termination  and  the  treaty  signed  before  our  departure,  but 
as  each  difficulty  was  overcome  new  obstacles  arose,  and  every  new  obsta¬ 
cle  caused  fresh  delays.  Nevertheless,  by  the  end  of  the  summer,  agreement 
had  apparently  been  reached  on  the  treaty  draft.  France  was  to  renounce 
all  the  provisions  of  former  treaties  except  those  which  concerned  Indo- 
China,  and  to  grant  to  Siam  judicial  autonomy  subject  to  a  limited  right  of 
evocation  and  fiscal  autonomy  on  the  same  lines  as  in  the  American  treaty. 
Most  important  of  all,  the  new  treaty  was  to  be  terminable  after  ten  years 
by  either  party.  When  the  time  came  for  our  departure  from  Bangkok  vv^e 
supposed  that  everything  was  settled. 

IV 

Upon  reaching  Paris  early  in  December  1924,  however,  to  our  dismay  we 
found  the  treaty  apparently  as  far  from  settlement  as  ever.  At  our  first 
meeting  with  the  French  Minister  to  Bangkok  we  discovered  that  new 
questions  had  arisen;  the  discussion  of  certain  underlying  principles  re¬ 
vealed  sharply  diverging  interpretations  maintained  by  the  French  and 
the  Siamese  Governments;  and  to  the  French  interpretation  the  Siamese 
Government  found  itself  quite  unable  to  accede.  Negotiations  must  be 
taken  up  afresh.  Several  weeks  of  anxious,  intensive  work  followed.  By 
the  middle  of  January  the  French  Foreign  Office  finally  agreed  to  accept 
a  formula  satisfactory  to  Siam,  and  also  gave  its  consent  to  the  insertion  of 
an  unusual  and  sweeping  arbitration  clause  by  which  both  parties  agreed 
that,  in  default  of  settlement  by  diplomatic  or  arbitral  means,  all  questions 


7 


arising  between  them  should  be  settled  by  the  Permanent  Court  of  Inter¬ 
national  Justice  in  conformity  to  the  principles  of  the  League  of  Nations. 
Even  questions  affecting  national  honor  and  vital  interests  were  not  ex¬ 
cepted.  After  complete  agreement  on  the  treaty  draft  had  been  reached 
among  ourselves,  the  text  was  laid  before  the  French  Cabinet  and  its  consent 
won.  Finally  a  date — January  31 — was  actually  set  for  the  signing.  Suc¬ 
cess  seemed  at  hand. 

During  the  ten  days’  interval  while  the  treaty  text  was  being  printed  pre¬ 
paratory  to  the  signing,  we  proceeded  to  The  Hague  to  open  negotiations 
for  a  new  Dutch  treaty.  Three  days  before  the  date  set  for  the  signing 
of  the  French  treaty,  out  of  a  clear  sky  came  a  telegram  from  Paris  saying 
that  the  French  Foreign  Office  had  just  received  cabled  word  from  their 
Charge  d’Affaires  at  Bangkok  that  an  outrageous  and  murderous  attack  had 
been  made  upon  the  wife  of  one  of  the  French  legal  advisers  in  Siam  and  the 
treaty  therefore  could  not  be  signed.  The  news  burst  like  a  bombshell. 

We  rushed  back  to  Paris  heavy  of  heart  and  cabled  to  Bangkok  for  a  full 
report.  For  several  critical  days  the  outcome  hung  in  the  balance.  What 
we  most  feared  was  a  hostile  newspaper  campaign  in  the  French  opposition 
press,  which  might  easily  have  killed  the  treaty.  Bangkok’s  cabled  reply, 
however,  gave  some  room  for  hope.  The  attack  had  been  made  without 
malice  by  an  irresponsible  individual  too  drunk  to  know  what  he  was  doing. 
Exactly  similar  attacks  might  have  happened  on  the  streets  of  Paris  or 
New  York. 

But  the  difficult  task  remained  of  convincing  the  French  Foreign  Office 
of  the  truth  of  these  facts  in  the  face  of  an  adverse  report  from  the  French 
Charge  at  Bangkok,  and  of  doing  so  without  undergoing  the  long  delays 
incident  to  an  ordinary  judicial  trial.  Until  the  French  treaty  was  signed 
there  was  little  hope  of  securing  other  treaties.  It  was  not  enough  that  the 
French  Foreign  Office  had  agreed  to  ask  for  no  indemnities.  For  the  sake 
of  the  other  treaties  France  must  be  persuaded  to  sign  the  new  treaty 
forthwith  in  the  very  face  of  this  unhappy  incident,  and  to  sign  it  without 
additional  demands  or  modifications.  Fortunately  the  affair  had  so  far 
been  kept  out  of  the  French  press;  but  the  downfall  of  the  Herriot  Ministry 
was  already  threatening,  and  the  Foreign  Office  feared  that  if  the  treaty 
was  signed  in  complete  disregard  of  such  an  incident  the  opposition  press 
might  still  publish  the  story  in  an  exaggerated  form  and  cause  the  over¬ 
throw  of  the  Government.  Followed  anxious  days,  discussions,  lengthy 
cable  dispatches,  persuasions,  proposals  and  counterproposals.  For  a  week 
the  outcome  lay  in  the  lap  of  the  gods.  In  the  end  Siam’s  efforts  prevailed. 
France  agreed  to  sign  the  treaty  forthwith,  and  on  February  14,  at  one 
o’clock.  Premier  Herriot  as  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs,  and  Prince  Charoon, 
the  Siamese  Minister,  attached  their  signatures  to  the  document  that  meant 
so  much  for  the  future  of  Siam.  Victory,  after  months  of  uncertainty  and 
struggle,  had  come  at  last! 


8 


V 

The  delay  in  getting  the  French  treaty  signed  prevented  the  opening 
of  British  negotiations  until  late  in  February.  The  outlook  in  London  was 
discouraging.  The  British  Minister  to  Bangkok,  who  had  been  in  London  in 
conference  with  the  British  Foreign  Office,  had  just  departed  for  Siam.  The 
British  Labor  Government,  which  had  on  several  occasions  shown  a  friendly 
interest  in  Siam,  had  been  overthrown  and  succeeded  by  a  Conservative  Gov¬ 
ernment.  Furthermore,  when,  several  months  before,  the  Siam.ese  Minister 
of  Foreign  Affairs  had  approached  the  British  Government  suggesting  a 
treaty  revision.  Great  Britain  had  given  a  noncommittal  reply,  but  requested 
that  if  conversations  should  be  opened  they  should  be  carried  on  in  Bangkok, 
a  request  which  the  Siamese  Minister  felt  unable  to  refuse.  Altogether  the 
situation  seemed  far  from  hopeful. 

Mr.  Austen  Chamberlain,  in  our  opening  interview  at  the  Foreign  Office, 
presented  the  British  point  of  view  with  great  frankness  and  fairness.  The 
United  States,  he  said,  could  afford  to  surrender  existing  treaty  privileges 
in  Siam,  because  American  trade  there  was,  comparatively  speaking,  non¬ 
existent.  With  Great  Britain  the  situation  was  very  different.  Over 
eighty  per  cent  of  the  entire  Siamese  export  trade  was  to  British  territory, 
and  some  sixty-seven  per  cent  of  Siam’s  imports  were  from  British  territory. 
If  Siam  should  be  released  from  the  three-per-cent  tariff  restriction  and 
should  suddenly  impose  a  heavy  import  tariff,  great  hardship  would  result 
to  the  British  merchants  concerned.  For  this  reason,  while  Great  Britain 
might  be  willing  to  agree  to  a  moderate  increase  in  the  existing  three-per-cent 
restriction,  she  could  not  feel  justified  in  granting  to  Siam  complete  tariff 
autonomy.  Furthermore,  British  trade  in  Siam  had  assumed  such  sub¬ 
stantial  proportions  that  Great  Britain  could  not  afford  to  take  the  risk  of 
jeopardizing  her  commercial  interests  in  Siamese  law  courts  without  ade¬ 
quate  protection;  the  presence  of  European  legal  advisers  constituted  the 
surest  guaranty  of  such  protection.  For  these  reasons,  Mr.  Chamberlain 
confessed,  it  would  seem  premature  at  this  time  to  surrender  the  existing 
treaty  privileges. 

These  arguments  seemed,  in  the  light  of  immediate  interests,  difficult 
to  answer;  nevertheless  one  could  not  but  feel  that  in  the  long  view  Great 
Britain  would  be  making  a  mistake  in  taking  such  a  position.  To  the 
reasons  for  this  Mr.  Chamberlain  listened  with  an  uncommonly  open  mind ; 
and  he  attentively  considered  our  suggestions  for  securing  practical  and 
adequate  protection  for  British  interests  in  Siam  by  methods  so  framed  as 
to  avoid  infringing  Siamese  sovereignty  or  wounding  the  national  pride  of 
the  Siamese. 

At  the  end  of  an  hour’s  talk  Mr.  Chamberlain  had  convinced  us  of  his 
sincerity  and  his  fair-mindedness.  “We  had  made  up  our  minds  to  refuse 
the  things  you  ask,”  he  said.  “But  you  have  put  a  new  light  upon  the 


9 


situation.  What  you  propose  seems  to  me  reasonable  and  fair.  If  you  can 
convince  the  experts  and  heads  of  departments  of  the  Foreign  Office,  of  the 
Board  of  Trade  and  the  Department  of  Overseas  Trade,  of  the  Colonial 
Office  and  of  the  Indian  Office — if  you  can  convince  them  as  you  have  me, 
while  I  can’t  make  any  definite  promises,  I  don’t  see  why  we  shouldn’t  be 
able  to  enter  upon  negotiations  along  the  line  you  propose.”  Siam  had  won 
her  fighting  chance! 

A  day  was  appointed  in  the  following  week  for  Siam  to  argue  her  case 
before  the  assembled  representatives  of  the  several  ministries  concerned.  In 
the  meantime  our  concrete  written  proposals  were  submitted  to  the  various 
government  departments,  and  were  further  explained  and  urged  in  intimate 
personal  conferences  with  those  who  were  particularly  influential. 

On  the  appointed  day  we  met  with  the  assemblage  of  British  representa¬ 
tives  around  a  long  table  in  the  British  Foreign  Office.  Everything  de¬ 
pended  on  the  outcome.  It  was  clear  that,  if  Great  Britain  refused  to  give 
Siam  a  new  treaty,  Italy  would  hkewise  refuse.  Also  Portugal  and  Spain, 
and  probably  Denmark,  Norway,  and  Sweden.  We  discussed  the  British 
position  in  Siam  from  almost  every  angle;  the  British  experts  showed  by  their 
searching  questions  how  carefully  they  had  studied  our  proposals  and  sug¬ 
gestions,  and  for  a  whole  afternoon,  amid  the  rapid  fire  of  question  and  an¬ 
swer,  the  tide  of  battle  hung  uncertain.  All  forms  of  diplomacy  had  been 
dropped;  with  utter  frankness  we  sought  to  reach  the  fundamental  truth. 
We  endeavored  to  explain  the  weak  as  well  as  the  strong  points  of  our  pro¬ 
posals;  and  the  British  representatives  were  equally  frank  and  above  board. 
At  the  end  of  the  day  we  saw  eye  to  eye,  and  the  British  Foreign  Office  said. 
We’ll  give  you  a  treaty  along  the  lines  which  you  propose.” 

Followed  a  month’s  intensive  work  of  hammering  out  a  draft  which  would 
relieve  Siam  from  the  old,  unjust  restrictions  and  yet  which  would  not 
leave  British  interests  unprotected.  It  was  agreed  to  wipe  away  all  the 
former  treaties,  and  to  replace  them  by  a  new  General  Treaty  and  a  com¬ 
prehensive  Commercial  Treaty  framed  in  the  new  spirit  along  the  lines  of  our 
initial  proposals.  We  held  numerous  meetings  with  assembled  representa¬ 
tives  of  various  British  offices  and  found  our  minds  clashing  over  many 
technical  details  and  questions  of  minor  importance.  For  instance,  in 
connection  with  the  treaty  provision  which  required  the  payment  of  draw¬ 
backs  on  the  reexport  of  goods  not  consumed  in  Siam,  the  Indian  Office 
desired  a  provision  releasing  Siam  from  having  to  pay  drawbacks  on  filled 
gunny  bags  but  forbidding  the  imposition  of  an  import  duty  on  them  in 
excess  of  one  per  cent.  To  this  Siam  could  not  agree;  for  her  main  export  is 
rice,  which  is  handled  in  gunny  bags,  and  should  the  price  of  foreign  gunny 
bags  be  greatly  advanced,  Siam  might  one  day  have  to  manufacture  her  own, 
and  temporarily  impose  a  moderate  duty  exceeding  one  per  cent.  It  was 
therefore  necessary  to  find  a  formula  which  would  satisfy  the  Indian  Office 
and  yet  which  would  not  saddle  Siam  with  an  injurious  restriction.  Simi- 


10 


larly,  provisions  respecting  the  general  granting  of  forestry  concessions  and 
oil  rights  must  be  dealt  with  in  a  way  such  as  would  not  hamper  Siam’s 
future  development  of  these  industries.  Intricate  legal  problems  arose  over 
the  rights  of  children  born  in  Siam  whose  parents  were  natives  of  Burma  or  of 
British  protectorates;  questions  arose  as  to  the  probate  of  estates  of  British 
subjects  dying  in  Siam.  The  position  of  India  and  the  self-governing  British 
Dominions  with  regard  to  treaty  rights  and  privileges  in  Siam  opened  up 
fresh  complications  and  problems.  These  and  a  hundred  other  questions 
furnished  many  contentious  points;  yet  never  once  during  the  course  of  the 
negotiations  was  there  resort  to  subterfuge  or  concealment.  We  sought  a 
common  object,  and  in  mutual  whole-hearted  confidence  hurdled  all  obsta¬ 
cles  which  lay  in  the  path. 

By  the  end  of  March  we  had  provisionally  agreed  upon  drafts  which 
embodied  even  more  than  we  had  originally  planned  to  ask.  Without 
compensation  Great  Britain  agreed  to  surrender  all  her  existing  treaty 
privileges  in  Siam  and  to  recognize  in  precisely  the  same  terms  as  in  the 
American  treaty  Siam’s  complete  right  to  judicial  and  fiscal  autonomy.  The 
old  treaties  had  been  irrevocable  and  eternal;  the  new  General  and  Com- 
mercial  Treaties  were  each  made  terminable  after  ten  years  by  either  party. 
Siam  in  return  agreed  not  to  impose  any  customs  duty  in  excess  of  five  per 
cent  ad  valorem  upon  textiles,  upon  iron,  steel,  or  manufactures  thereof,  or 
upon  machinery  manufactured  in  British  territory  and  imported  into  Siam; 
but  this  undertaking  was  limited  to  ten  years  after  the  coming  into  force 
of  the  treaty,  after  which  Siam’s  hands  were  free.  In  short.  Great  Britain 
agreed  that  henceforth  British  influence  in  Siam  should  be  built  upon  Siamese 
goodwill  rather  than  upon  irritating  and  irrevocable  treaty  restrictions. 
It  was  a  farseeing  step  for  Britain  to  take.  The  provisional  treaty  drafts 
were  mailed  to  Bangkok  to  receive  the  detailed  consideration  of  the  Siamese 
Government  and  the  comments  of  the  British  Minister  to  Bangkok;  the  five 
or  six  weeks  which  must  elapse  before  cabled  replies  could  come  would  afford 
an  opportunity  to  push  negotiations  in  other  countries. 

During  the  course  of  the  British  conversations,  negotiations  with  the 
Netherlands  Government  were  pushed  with  all  possible  speed;  the  night  boat 
across  the  Channel  made  it  possible  often  to  spend  alternate  days  in  London 
and  The  Hague.  The  Netherlands  were  generous  in  their  response  to  Siam’s 
appeal;  friendly  understanding  and  mutual  confidence  smoothed  away  all 
difficulties.  The  questions  raised  by  the  Netherlands  treaty  were  far  less 
complicated  and  fewer  than  those  raised  by  the  British;  consequently,  as 
the  British  draft  took  shape  the  draft  of  a  new  Dutch  agreement  progressed 
even  more  rapidly.  Therefore  by  the  time  the  British  drafts  were  completed 
a  new  Netherlands  treaty  text  had  also  been  agreed  upon,  closely  following 
the  American  model.  The  day  following  the  dispatch  of  the  British  text 
the  Netherlands  draft  was  mailed  to  Bangkok.  In  the  opening  days  of 
April  we  took  the  train  south  to  begin  negotiations  with  Italy. 


11 


VI 

At  Rome  Siam’s  case  was  urged,  first  before  individual,  influential  offi¬ 
cials  of  the  Italian  Foreign  Oflfice,  and  later  before  a  formal  group  appointed 
to  consider  the  matter.  Italian  interests  in  Siam  are  comparatively  small; 
and  Italy  saw  little  reason  for  changing  the  existing  situation.  The  progress 
of  the  negotiations  seemed  so  slow  and  uncertain  that  a  conference  with 
Premier  Mussolini  was  arranged.  At  the  last  moment  Signor  Mussolini 
was  prevented  by  illness  from  keeping  the  engagement.  Time  pressed;  and, 
leaving  Rome,  we  returned  to  Paris  and  took  the  Sud  Express  for  Lisbon. 

A  new  Portuguese  treaty  was  of  particular  importance  to  Siam;  for, 
apart  from  gaining  the  right  of  fiscal  autonomy,  Siam  is  embarrassed  by 
large  numbers  of  Chinese  residents  who  claim  exemption  as  Portuguese 
proteges  by  virtue  of  alleged  birth  in  the  Portuguese  colony  of  Macao  near 
Hongkong.  Proof  of  the  falsity  of  each  individual  claim  by  patient  investi¬ 
gation  and  the  securing  of  contrary  evidence  fails  to  deter  others  from 
indulging  in  the  same  practice;  apparently  this  is  only  one  of  the  inevitable 
and  incurable  outgrowths  of  the  system  of  extraterritoriality. 

The  political  situation  in  Lisbon  is  peculiar.  Ministry  succeeds  ministry 
with  startling  rapidity;  the  regularity  of  the  process  is  broken  only  by  revo¬ 
lution.  A  minister’s  hearty  support  may  prove  valueless  with  his  removal 
a  few  weeks  later.  The  frequent  changing  of  cabinet  positions  concentrates 
power  in  the  hands  of  the  permanent  officials.  Yet  these  cannot  be  reached 
except  through  their  minister.  Accordingly  we  first  held  conferences  with 
the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs.  After  his  support  had  been  gained,  no 
one  could  have  been  more  courteous  to  us  than  he;  yet,  as  we  well  knew,  the 
real  battle  still  lay  before  us. 

Of  one  man  we  had  been  warned  on  several  sides;  if  the  path  of  our  treaty 
led  through  his  office,  we  were  told,  our  quest  would  prove  well-nigh  impos¬ 
sible,  for  he  was  infinitely  difficult  to  win  and,  once  having  made  up  his 
mind,  adhered  unwaveringly  to  his  decision.  Our  hopes  fell  when  we 
discovered  that  he  headed  one  of  the  important  divisions  of  the  Foreign 
Office  without  whose  sanction  no  treaty  could  pass.  After  holding  confer¬ 
ences  with  several  of  the  other  heads  of  divisions  with  varying  measures  of 
success,  we  secured  an  appointment  to  confer  with  him  on  the  last  day  of 
April. 

It  was  with  rather  gloomy  forebodings  that  we  walked  down  the  long, 
highly  ornamented  corridors  to  the  former  bedchamber  of  the  King,  which 
with  the  coming  of  the  Republic  had  been  converted  into  an  office.  But  to 
our  delight  we  found  that  here  was  a  man  of  brains  and  character  who  had 
really  studied  and  digested  our  proposed  treaty  draft,  and  was  prepared  to 
act.  We  entered  into  detailed  discussions  with  him,  and  that  very  afternoon 
agreed  to  various  modifications  in  the  draft;  and  when  we  parted  we  realized 
that  of  all  in  Lisbon  he  best  understood  the  point  of  view  of  Siam.  He 


12 


proved  our  staunchest  friend;  when  seemingly  insurmountable  obstacles 
arose  in  other  divisions  of  the  Foreign  Office,  he  championed  our  cause  and 
overcame  the  opposition.  Had  it  not  been  for  him,  Siam  in  all  probability 
would  not  have  won  the  treaty. 

In  the  end  the  provisional  consent  of  the  various  officials  to  a  treaty  closely 
following  the  American  model,  and  also  embodying  a  general  arbitration 
clause,  was  won.  The  draft  could  not  be  finally  approved,  however,  until  it 
had  gone  before  various  bureaus  and  legislative  committees.  Our  friends 
in  the  Foreign  Office  promised  to  expedite  matters  as  much  as  possible  and  to 
defend  the  draft  if  necessary;  in  the  meantime  negotiations  could  be  opened 
in  Spain. 

VII 

In  Madrid  good  fortune  favored  us.  It  chanced  that  on  the  day  of  our 
arrival  the  King  was  to  attend  the  races;  the  American  Ambassador  in¬ 
vited  us  to  accompany  him  to  the  gala  luncheon  at  the  race  course,  where  we 
were  introduced  to  General  Primo  de  Rivera,  then  President  of  the  Military 
Directorate  and  in  supreme  power,  and  to  others  close  to  His  Majesty. 
That  very  afternoon,  thanks  to  the  American  Ambassador,  His  Majesty 
heard  about  our  Siamese  treaty. 

Next  day  there  followed  a  conference  with  the  all-powerful  General  Primo 
de  Rivera;  and,  once  his  whole-hearted  consent  had  been  won,  success  was 
assured.  He  promised  us  the  treaty  and  appointed  a  commission  to  carry 
on  the  negotiations,  placing  at  its  head  his  nephew,  Senor  Fernando  Espinosa 
de  los  Monteros,  the  acting  head  of  the  Spanish  Foreign  Office.  Every 
evening  we  gathered  around  a  table  at  the  Foreign  Office  in  a  large  red  room 
resplendent  with  fine  old  paintings;  we  modified  only  in  quite  unimportant 
details  the  original  treaty  draft  as  presented  to  General  Primo  de  Rivera. 
In  little  more  than  a  week  the  work  was  done  and  Spain  had  agreed  to  the 
surrender  of  the  old  treaty  and  the  acceptance  of  a  new  one  closely  following 
the  lines  of  the  American  treaty.  The  commission  good-naturedly  laughed 
at  our  informality  and  our  continual  plea  for  speed.  “  You  Americans  would 
like  to  make  a  treaty  over  the  telephone,’'  they  exclaimed.  But  they  never 
failed  in  their  kindliness  or  in  their  generous  and  sympathetic  understanding 
of  Siam’s  difficult  position. 

From  Madrid  we  returned  to  Paris,  and  thence  on  to  The  Hague  for  the 
final  ceremonies  attendant  upon  the  signing  of  the  treaty  with  the  Nether¬ 
lands.  On  June  8  the  Dutch  treaty  was  signed  by  Dr.  van  Karnebeek, 
the  Netherlands  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  and  Prince  Damras,  the  Sia¬ 
mese  Minister  to  The  Hague.  On  the  same  day  disturbing  news  arrived 
from  London.  The  British  Foreign  Office  wrote  that  the  British  Minister  in 
Bangkok  had  raised  objections  to  the  draft  of  the  new  treaty.  Apparently 
local  British  opposition  in  Bangkok  was  strong.  The  Foreign  Office  wrote 
to  say  that,  in  view  of  their  Minister’s  cabled  report,  after  further  mature 


13 


consideration  they  must  ask  for  certain  additions  and  modifications  to  the 
draft.  A  glance  at  the  changes  asked  for  caused  one’s  heart  to  sink.  To  cer¬ 
tain  of  them  Siam  could  not  accede.  Did  this,  then,  spell  the  end  of  all  our 
hopes? 

We  rushed  back  to  London,  realizing  that  the  fight  there  must  be  fought 
again  in  the  face  of  the  adverse  report.  Again  a  formal  meeting  was  arranged 
between  ourselves  and  the  experts  and  representatives  of  the  Foreign  Office, 
the  Board  of  Trade,  the  Indian  Office,  and  the  Colonial  Office,  together  with 
the  former  British  Consul-General  in  Siam,  who  had  been  summoned  for  the 
occasion.  For  a  whole  afternoon  the  battle  raged.  We  sought  to  explain 
why  Siam  could  not  accept  certain  of  the  proposed  modifications  and  why 
Great  Britain  should  not  make  the  mistake  of  requesting  them;  why  some  of 
the  objects  sought  were  quite  unnecessary  and  how  others  might  be  attained 
in  more  practicable  ways.  It  was  one  against  many,  and  the  battle  never 
flagged.  ‘Wou  reminded  me  of  Daniel  in  the  lions’  den,”  exclaimed  one  of 
the  British  representatives  at  the  end  of  the  afternoon.  But,  when  the 
smoke  of  battle  cleared  away,  the  sun  was  shining.  Great  Britain  had 
agreed  to  withdraw  all  the  objectionable  modifications,  or  to  alter  them 
to  a  quite  unobjectionable  form.  The  British  treaty  was  won.  During  two 
more  all-afternoon  sessions  such  difficulties  as  remained  were  ironed  out; 
and  in  individual  conferences  during  the  next  ten  days  solutions  were  found 
for  several  highly  technical  but  extremely  difficult  legalistic  problems, 
and  in  addition  a  Treaty  of  General  Arbitration  was  negotiated  and  agreed 
upon.  By  the  middle  of  July  the  General  and  Commercial  Treaties  were 
ready  for  signature.  We  hurried  down  from  Stockholm  for  the  signing;  and 
on  the  afternoon  of  July  14  Mr.  Chamberlain  and  Phya  Prabha  Karavongse, 
the  Siamese  Minister  to  London,  unostentatiously  attached  their  signatures 
and  seals  to  the  documents  of  such  vital  importance  to  Siam.  The  new 
British  treaty  had  come  into  being. 


VIII 

In  the  meantime  we  had  been  turning  our  attention  to  the  Scandinavian 
countries.  Denmark,  Norway,  and  Sweden  still  remained;  also  Italy. 
Should  any  one  of  these  countries  refuse  to  give  up  its  existing  rights,  Siam 
would  remain  bound  by  the  old  three-per-cent  tariff  restriction;  for  all  the 
new  treaties  contained  the  provision  that  Siam  should  be  free  to  raise  its 
tariff  only  after  every  one  of  the  nations  holding  irrevocable  treaty  rights 
had  freely  and  without  compensatory  benefit  agreed  to  surrender  them. 
Apart,  therefore,  from  the  existence  of  considerable  Scandinavian  shipping 
interests  in  Siam,  each  one  of  these  treaties  was  a  matter  of  large  importance 
to  Bangkok. 

In  Copenhagen,  in  Stockholm,  and  in  Oslo,  where  Siamese  interests  are- 
in  the  hands  of  Prince  Vipulya,  accredited  to  these  three  capitals,  again 
we  encountered  an  open-mindedness,  a  sympathetic  understanding  for  the 


14 


plucky  struggle  of  a  small  nation,  and  a  readiness  to  translate  sympathy  into 
practical  action  which  showed  that,  in  spite  of  much  that  is  said  to  the  con¬ 
trary,  European  foreign  offices  are  not  all  closed  to  liberal  sentiments.  All 
three  of  the  Scandinavian  countries  declared  themselves  ready  to  meet 
with  Siam’s  desires  and  to  give  new  treaties.  In  Denmark  and  Sweden, 
through  the  help  of  influential  friends  at  court,  negotiations  were  expedited 
and  final  agreement  come  to  on  the  drafts  of  the  treaties,  which  were  to  be 
signed  as  soon  as  the  parliamentary  committees  could  formally  signify  their 
approval  in  the  early  fall.  Norway  also  promised  a  new  treaty  along  the 
same  general  lines,  and  quickly  agreed  in  principle  to  the  draft  which  we 
proposed. 

In  Oslo  came  word  from  Lisbon  reporting  that  our  Portuguese  treaty 
had  gone  on  the  rocks.  To  protect  her  port  and  Madeira  wine,  in  which  her 
wealth  largely  consists,  Portugal  insists  on  the  insertion  in  her  treaties  of 
a  clause  for  the  punishment  of  all  who  sell  wine  labeled  ‘‘Port  ”  or  “ Madeira ” 
not  coming  from  Portugal  or  the  island  of  Madeira;  in  the  Siamese  treaty 
the  formula  had  been  considerably  modified  so  as  to  avoid  possible  difficulties 
with  British  and  French  merchants  selling  these  wines  in  Bangkok.  The 
formula  thus  modified  had  run  afoul  in  one  of  the  Portuguese  legislative  com¬ 
mittees;  the  treaty  had  therefore  failed  to  pass  and  there  seemed  a  not 
improbable  chance  of  its  total  shipwreck. 

During  the  four  days’  train  journey  from  Oslo  to  Lisbon  urgent  cables  were 
dispatched  to  Bangkok  and  various  telegrams  exchanged  with  Lisbon,  so 
that  by  the  time  we  reached  the  Portuguese  capital  the  way  had  been 
opened  to  agree  on  a  new  formula  which  would  not  endanger  Siamese  inter¬ 
ests  and  yet  would  prove  acceptable  to  the  various  groups  in  Portugal. 
Once  in  Lisbon,  in  intimate  contact  with  Foreign  Office  officials  who  had 
become  personal  friends,  it  was  not  difficult  to  agree  upon  a  formula;  but 
a  new  difficulty  then  confronted  us.  The  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  with 
whom  we  had  negotiated  in  April  had  been  succeeded  by  another;  his  suc¬ 
cessor  had  been  deposed  as  a  result  of  a  revolution,  and  so  far  no  Premier 
could  be  found  able  to  control  a  majority  of  the  Chamber.  As  a  result 
there  was  no  existing  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  by  whom  the  treaty  could 
be  signed!  We  had,  as  it  happened,  come  down  from  Paris  on  the  train  with 
the  man  who  it  was  hoped  would  be  able  to  form  a  Government.  He  ulti¬ 
mately  succeeded  in  doing  so;  and  one  of  the  earliest  acts  of  the  newly  ap¬ 
pointed  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  was,  together  with  Phya  Sanpakitch,  the 
Siamese  Minister  to  Italy,  Spain,  and  Portugal,  to  sign  the  treaty  with  Siam. 

IX 

It  was  then  late  in  July;  we  stopped  a  few  days  in  Madrid  to  give  to  the 
draft  of  the  Spanish  treaty  its  final  touches  preparatory  to  its  signature, 
and  hurried  on  to  Rome,  reaching  there  the  first  week  of  August.  The  Italian 
treaty  was  the  last  one  remaining,  but  the  way  to  its  attainment  seemed 


15 


beset  with  difficulties.  Since  the  preceding  April  various  telegrams  had 
been  sent  to  the  Italian  Foreign  Office  urging  the  hastening  of  negotiations; 
but  these  had  failed  to  bear  fruit,  and  a  bare  three  weeks  now  remained 
before  it  was  necessary  for  me  to  return  to  America.  Unfortunately  Rome 
was  in  the  throes  of  intense  summer  heat,  and  the  majority  of  Foreign 
Office  officials  were  away  on  their  vacation.  Apparently  the  only  hope  of 
success  was  to  go  straight  to  Premier  Mussolini,  convince  him  of  the 
importance  of  Italy^s  not  being  the  single  nation  to  bar  Siam’s  right  to  full 
fiscal  autonomy,  and  urge  top  speed.  With  his  aid  it  might  be  done;  he 
works  with  the  speed  and  precision  of  a  steam  turbine,  and  by  the  force  of 
his  compelling,  dominant  will  drives  the  Italian  machinery  of  state  at  a  pace 
that  it  has  never  known  before. 

The  Marquis  Paulucci  de’  Calboli  Barone,  the  Chef  du  Cabinet  of 
Premier  Mussolini,  seemed  considerably  impressed  by  the  situation.  At 
the  close  of  our  discussion  the  Marquis  expressed  the  sincere  wish  that  Italy 
might  meet  with  Siam’s  desires  and  that  the  new  treaty  might  be  negotiated 
at  once,  especially  since  the  Siamese  Government  had  felt  obliged  to  ask 
for  the  withdrawal  of  negotiations  were  the  draft  not  agreed  to  before  my 
departure.  ‘‘But,”  he  added,  “unhappily  we  are  blocked  by  physical  im¬ 
possibility.  The  Foreign  Office  officials  are  away  on  their  holidays.  There 
is  no  one  in  Rome  competent  to  negotiate  the  treaty.”  “But,”  we  asked, 
“can  they  not  be  recalled?” 

This  was  a  question  which  only  the  Premier  could  decide.  The  Marquis 
Paulucci  promised  to  take  it  up  with  him  immediately.  For  three  days  we 
waited,  holding  our  breath;  on  the  fourth,  word  came  from  the  Itahan 
Foreign  Office  that  telegrams  had  been  sent  out  to  various  Foreign  Office 
officials  calling  them  to  Rome,  that  a  Treaty  Commission  had  been  ap¬ 
pointed,  and  that  they  would  meet  with  Siam’s  plenipotentiary  on  the 
following  Wednesday,  August  19.  That  gave  just  nine  days  before  I  had  to 
leave  Rome  to  catch  my  steamer  for  America.  Again  the  gods  were  favoring 
us  and  we  had  a  fighting  chance. 

During  the  intervening  days  we  got  into  personal  touch  with  certain  of  the 
Italian  representatives  on  the  newly  appointed  Treaty  Commission  and 
talked  over  several  of  the  more  vital  issues.  None  of  the  Commissioners 
thought  it  possible  to  conclude  the  negotiations  within  a  week,  yet  we  felt 
that  if  there  was  a  will  a  way  could  be  found,  and  we  mapped  out  a  pro¬ 
gramme  accordingly.  The  first  clash  came  over  the  question  of  the  language 
to  be  used  for  the  treaty  text.  The  Italian  Commissioners  wanted  it  to 
be  in  Italian.  At  our  first  meeting,  however,  they  agreed  to  accept  both 
an  English  and  an  Italian  text,  with  the  English  one  controlling;  and  we 
then  proceeded  to  formulate  a  programme  of  action  for  the  ensuing  week. 
Siam  agreed  to  prepare  and  present  to  the  Italian  Foreign  Office  on  the 
following  day  a  treaty  draft  in  English  and  Italian ;  the  Italians  were  to  study 
this  and  meet  with  us  two  days  later  to  discuss  counterproposals;  and  every 


16 


day  thereafter  the  Treaty  Commission  would  sit  with  us  until  the  wmrk  was 
completed. 

Evidently  Premier  Mussolini  had  issued  orders  that  things  were  to  move, 
for  this  programme  was  followed  out  to  the  letter.  During  all  those  crowded 
days  and  nights — for  there  were  times  when  the  lights  in  the  Siamese  lega¬ 
tion  burned  till  morning — there  was  never  an  hour  wasted.  The  Treaty 
Commission,  at  considerable  personal  self-sacrifice,  held  long,  protracted 
sessions  with  us,  discussing  our  proposals,  arguing  against  some  of  them, 
presenting  counterproposals.  We  defended  and  maintained  our  draft  in 
all  the  essential  points,  but  yielded  wherever  possible  on  the  nonessentials 
and  on  all  matters  of  pure  form.  By  the  following  Monday  we  had  appar¬ 
ently  come  within  sight  of  final  agreement.  The  Italian  Commission  seemed 
ready  to  accept  a  text  which  was  thoroughly  satisfactory  to  Siam.  Never¬ 
theless,  Italian  desires  remained  unsatisfied  as  to  five  remaining  points, 
which  Italy  felt  a  sine  qua  non  for  the  granting  of  the  treaty,  but  to  which 
Siam  could  not  agree.  For  two  days  the  debate  raged.  At  length  the 
Italians  on  three  of  the  points  agreed  to  accept  modified  formulas  phrased 
in  such  a  way  as  not  to  endanger  Siamese  interests,  but  on  the  other  two 
deadlock  resulted.  In  the  end  the  only  course  open  was  to  refer  the  impasse 
to  Premier  Mussolini,  who  alone  was  responsible  for  the  final  decision. 

On  the  day  before  our  departure  from  Borne  we  were  ushered  into  Signor 
Mussolini’s  office  at  the  Ministry  of  Foreign  Affairs.  In  the  quiet  of  a 
palatial  room  lined  with  radiant  old  Italian  pictures  he  arose  from  a  desk  in 
the  corner  to  receive  us.  As  he  advanced  I  could  not  but  wonder  at  the 
gentleness  of  his  eyes,  set  in  a  powerful,  clean-cut  face — a  face  which  with 
all  its  strength  had  nothing  in  it  of  hardness.  Fie  spoke  simply  and  to  the 
point.  He  told  us  that  Italy  had  always  felt  friendship  for  Siam,  and  that 
in  token  of  that  friendship  Italy  would  withdraw  the  fourth  and  fifth  de¬ 
mands.  The  last  treaty,  then,  was  won!  After  seventy  years  of  extra¬ 
territoriality  Siam  was  to  be  once  more  autonomous  and  free. 

X 

All  the  new  treaties,  including  one  with  Belgium  negotiated  in  Bangkok, 
are  now  signed  and  ratified;  and  extraterritoriality  in  Siam  is  a  thing  of 
the  past.  With  its  passing,  and  the  removal  of  the  old  fiscal  restrictions, 
new  vistas  open  out.  How  has  Siam  been  preparing  herself  for  the  new 
period  into  which  she  is  entering?  Will  she  be  able  to  exercise  wisely  her 
new  power? 

King  Rama  VI  died  in  November,  1925,  soon  after  the  completion  of  the 
treaty  negotiations.  During  the  close  of  his  reign  expenditures  were  exceed¬ 
ing  the  national  income  and  a  financial  crisis  loomed  ahead. 

With  the  accession  to  the  throne  of  his  brother.  King  Prajadhipok,  vigorous 
measures  were  taken.  Instead  of  negotiating  foreign  loans  or  increasing 
taxes,  the  new  King  adopted  the  more  salutary  method  of  eliminating  need- 


17 


less  and  extravagant  expenditures.  He  required  each  ministry  to  prune 
away  waste,  to  dismiss  supernumeraries,  to  abolish  sinecures.  Economy  be¬ 
came  the  watchword  of  the  day.  Bravely  he  led  the  way  by  reducing  at  a 
single  stroke  the  revenues  allowed  for  royal  expenditure  from  nine  milhon  to 
six  million  ticals.  His  earnestness  was  irresistible.  As  a  result  Siam  has 
turned  its  deficits  into  surpluses;  and  the  present  intention  is  deliberately  to 
budget  for  surpluses  so  as  to  build  up  substantial  reserves.  In  view  of  the 
great  natural  wealth  of  the  country,  in  view  of  the  increased  revenues  made 
possible  under  the  new  treaties  by  slight  increases  in  duties  on  widely  con¬ 
sumed  articles,  in  view  of  the  practicability  of  improving  the  rice  crops 
and  introducing  other  secondary  crops,  Siam’s  financial  future  looks  very 
bright. 

In  constitutional  matters  a  similarly  vigorous  policy  has  been  pursued.  At 
the  end  of  the  last  reign  the  sovereign  had  been  more  and  more  successfully 
isolated  from  the  best  counsel  of  the  realm  by  a  group  seeking  its  own  ends. 
One  of  the  new  King’s  first  acts  was  to  dismiss  from  the  high  offices  which 
they  had  attained  the  leaders  of  this  group.  Simultaneously  he  created  a 
new  constitutional  body  to  give  to  the  sovereign  advice  on  high  matters  of 
policy;  this  Supreme  Council  of  State,  composed  of  five  men,  was  small 
enough  to  impress  responsibility  on  each  of  its  members.  Upon  it  he  placed 
some  of  the  ablest  and  most  sincere  of  Siam’s  leaders.  By  this  adroit  and 
statesmanlike  move  not  only  was  an  avenue  of  access  to  the  King  opened 
up,  but  Siam  gained  what  she  badly  needed — a  single  body  to  help  coordinate 
and  unify  the  work  of  the  separate  ministries. 

Troublous  constitutional  problems  still  remain.  His  Majesty  keenly  ap¬ 
preciates  the  difficulties  and  dangers  of  absolute  monarchy;  he  has  a  sincere 
desire  to  democratize  the  government  and  to  shift  part  of  its  responsibilities 
to  the  shoulders  of  the  people.  But  a  parliament  uncontrolled  by  an  in¬ 
telligent  and  interested  electorate  is  a  far  more  dangerous  engine  of  tyranny 
than  an  absolute  monarch;  and,  until  the  groundwork  can  be  built  by  push¬ 
ing  forward  the  work  of  general  education,  the  parliamentary  form  of  govern¬ 
ment  must  wait.  Programmes,  nevertheless,  can  be  formulated  looking 
toward  this  goal;  and  in  the  meantime  the  King  is  hoping  to  develop  the 
people’s  political  experience  by  creating  popularly  elected  municipal  councils 
in  some  of  the  larger  cities. 

Siam’s  judicial  problems  are  already  well  in  hand.  The  patient  and 
thorough  work  of  the  Code  Commission  has  borne  fruit  in  able  codes  of  law 
based  on  the  best  European  models.  Five  years  will  probably  be  required 
for  the  completion  of  these  codes.  The  most  important  part  of  the  judicial 
groundwork  yet  remaining  is  the  teaching  and  training  of  Siamese  judges. 

Further  progress  demands  special  activity  in  two  directions — the  one 
the  vigorous  pushing  forward  of  general  education,  which  is  made  exception¬ 
ally  difficult  by  lack  of  trained  Siamese  teachers  and  Siamese  textbooks;  the 
other  the  stimulation  of  agricultural  productivity  by  standardizing  and  im- 


18 


proving  the  rice  crop  and  by  introducing  secondary  crops  such  as  tobacco 
and  hemp. 

Underlying  all  else  is  the  problem  of  how  to  assimilate  the  best  of  Western 
civilization  without  being  corrupted  by  the  demoralizing  forces  with  which 
that  civilization  seems  inextricably  bound.  Of  all  possible  future  dangers 
to  Siam  perhaps  here  lies  the  greatest.  Will  she  be  able  to  incorporate  the 
best  from  the  Occident  and  yet  retain  sufficient  poise  to  maintain  her  own 
distinctive  individuality,  to  assimilate  things  Western  and  yet  not  be  swal¬ 
lowed  by  the  West?  Can  she  prevent  religious  and  moral  values  becoming 
subordinated  to  material  ones? 

Indeed,  Siam  has  problems  a  plenty.  But  these  are  a  sign  of  progress. 
Those  who  have  lived  and  worked  in  Siam  and  come  to  know  and  love  her 
people  have  great  faith  in  the  Siamese.  They  will  find  a  way.  Siam’s  star 
is  rising. 


THE  PASSING  OF  EXTRATERRITORIALITY  IN  SIAM 


By  Feancis  Bowes  Sayee 

Former  Adviser  in  Foreign  Affairs  to  His  Siamese  Majesty’s  Government 

As  a  result  of  the  expansion  of  Western  trade  during  the  nineteenth  century 
following  the  industrial  revolution,  Yfestern  nations,  ever  eager  for  the 
coveted  trade  of  the  Orient,  and  stimulated  by  the  need  of  finding  new 
markets  for  their  accumulating  exports,  pushed  their  insistent  way  into  the 
Far  East  with  new  determination.  There  followed  a  series  of  treaties  with 
Eastern  potentates  opening  up  new  trading  areas  and  clothing  Western 
merchants  with  extraterritorial  rights  roughly  similar  to  those  enjoyed  by 
foreigners  under  the  Turkish  Capitulations.  Thus  was  born  in  the  Orient 
the  regime  of  extraterritoriality  which  in  three  quarters  of  a  century  was 
destined  to  become  the  focus  of  increasing  disturbance  and  unrest  in  the 
Far  Eastern  world. 

Siam  did  not  escape  the  play  of  these  world  forces.  British  merchants 
pushing  beyond  India  and  Burma  found  in  Siam  a  country  unawakened  but 
with  rich  possibilities;  and  in  the  year  1855  Great  Britain  secured  the 
signature  of  the  Siamese  Fling  to  a  treaty^  which  marked  the  beginning  of  the 
system  of  extraterritoriality  in  Siam.  Under  the  existing  Siamese  law  of 
that  day  no  foreigners  had  the  right  to  acquire  land  or  to  live  permanently 
in  Siam;  the  earlier  Anglo-Siamese  Treaty  of  1826^  had  expressly  provided 
that  Siamese  authorities  might  deny  to  British  merchants  permission  to 
stay  in  Siam.^  The  treaty  of  1855  ushered  in  a  new  regime.  It  provided 
that  ‘‘all  British  subjects  coming  to  Siam  shall  receive  from  the  Siamese 
Government  full  protection  and  assistance  to  enable  them  to  reside  in  Siam 
in  all  security,  and  trade  with  every  facility,  free  from  oppression  or  injury 
on  the  part  of  the  Siamese.”  ^  Another  article®  gave  to  British  subjects  the 
right  “to  trade  freely  in  all  the  seaports  of  Siam;”  and  it  further  provided 
that  British  subjects  should  have  the  right  to  reside  permanently  in  Bangkok 
or  within  a  certain  area  defined  by  the  treaty,  and  under  prescribed  regula¬ 
tions  there  to  acquire  land  or  construct  buildings. 

The  treaty  contained  two  other  outstanding  provisions.  The  treaty  of 
1826  had  provided®  that  all  difficulties  should  be  settled  “according  to  the 
established  laws  of  the  place  or  country.”  ^  The  new  treaty  of  1855  provided 

1  British  and  Foreign  State  Papers,  Vol.  46,  p.  138. 

2  British  and  Foreign  State  Papers,  Vol.  23,  p.  1153. 

3  Article  VII.  Article  I  of  the  treaty  of  April  18,  1855. 

6  Article  IV.  » Article  VI. 

^  Similarly,  the  treaty  of  March  20, 1833,  with  the  United  States  had  provided  (Article  IX) 
that  “merchants  of  the  United  States  trading  in  the  Kingdom  of  Siam  shall  respect  and 
follow  the  laws  and  customs  of  the  coimtry  in  aU  points.” 

19 


20 


that  ‘‘any  disputes  arising  between  Siamese  and  British  subjects  shall  be 
heard  and  determined  by  the  [British]  Consul  in  conjunction  with  the  proper 
Siamese  officers;  and  criminal  offenses  will  be  punished,  in  the  case  of  English 
offenders,  by  the  Consul,  according  to  English  laws,  and  in  the  case  of 
Siamese  offenders  by  their  own  laws,  through  the  Siamese  authorities. 
But  the  Consul  shall  not  interfere  in  any  matters  referring  solely  to  Siamese, 
neither  will  the  Siamese  authorities  interfere  in  questions  which  only  concern 
the  subjects  of  Her  Britannic  Majesty.”  ® 

The  second  provision,  framed  to  prevent  the  reduction  of  British  trade 
through  increased  Siamese  duties,  stipulated  that  “on  all  articles  of  import 
the  duties  shall  be  three  per  cent;”  ^  and  it  was  further  stipulated  that  “the 
tax  or  duty  to  be  paid  on  each  article  of  Siamese  produce  previous  to  or  upon 
exportation”  should  be  that  specified  in  a  long  and  minute  schedule  of 
export  and  inland  duties  attached  as  an  annex  to  the  treaty.  Both  of  these 
provisions  were  explained  and  amplified  in  an  explanatory  agreement 
signed  the  following  year.^® 

At  the  time  when  these  two  provisions  were  adopted,  no  one  dreamed  that 
they  could  or  would  be  used  in  future  years  to  curb  the  domestic  and  foreign 
policy  and  handicap  the  future  development  of  Siam.  The  trial  of  a  handful 
of  British  traders,  accustomed  to  a  different  law  and  a  different  civilization, 
by  their  own  consul  seemed  a  matter  of  mutual  convenience;  and  the  financial 
needs  of  the  undeveloped  state  were  amply  covered  by  the  revenue  from  a 
three  per  cent,  import  tariff.  The  ominous  feature  of  this  one-sided  arrange¬ 
ment  was  that  the  treaty  contained  no  time  limit ;  by  its  terms  it  could  not 
be  modified  without  the  consent  of  both  parties,  and  was  therefore  irrevoca¬ 
ble  and  unending. 

It  was  only  natural  that  other  Western  nations  should  demand  like 
privileges;  and  during  the  succeeding  years,  therefore,  Siam  became  bound 
by  a  series  of  treaties  closely  similar  to  the  British  treaty  of  1855,  supple¬ 
mented  by  the  explanatory  agreement  of  1856.  In  1856  treaties  were  signed 
with  the  United  States  and  with  France, in  1858  with  Denmark, in 

®  Article  II.  ®  Article  VIII. 

British  and  Foreign  State  Papers,  Vol.  46,  p.  146.  Article  II  of  the  supplementary 
agreement  of  1856,  explaining  the  meaning  of  Article  II  of  the  treaty  of  1855,  stipulated 
“that  all  criminal  cases  in  which  both  parties  are  British  subjects,  or  in  which  the  defendant 
is  a  British  subject,  shall  be  tried  and  determined  by  the  British  Consul  alone.  All  criminal 
cases  in  which  both  parties  are  Siamese  or  in  which  the  defendant  is  a  Siamese,  shall  be  tried 
and  determined  by  the  Siamese  authorities  alone. 

“That  all  civil  cases  in  which  both  parties  are  British  subjects  or  in  which  the  defendant 
is  a  British  subject,  shall  be  heard  and  determined  by  the  British  Consul  alone.  Ail  civil 
cases  in  which  both  parties  are  Siamese,  or  in  which  the  defendant  is  a  Siamese,  shall  be 
heard  and  determined  by  the  Siamese  authorities  alone  .  .  . 

“British  subjects,  their  persons,  houses,  premises,  land,  ships  or  property  of  any  kind, 
shall  not  be  seized,  injured,  or  in  any  way  interfered  vfith  by  the  Siamese.” 

British  and  Foreign  State  Papers,  Vol.  46,  p  383. 

12  Ibid.,  Vol.  47,  p.  993.  Ibid.,  Vol.  50,  p.  1073. 


1 


21 

1859  with  Portugal/^  in  1860  with  the  Netherlands,^®  in  1862  with  Ger- 
in  1868  with  Sweden  and  Norway/^  with  Belgium, and  with  Italy,^® 
in  1869  with  Austria-Hungary ,2°  and  in  1870  with  Spain. Each  of  these 
treaties  in  varying  language  imposed  extraterritoriality  upon  Siam.  Thus, 
the  American  treaty  of  1856  adopted  the  language  of  the  British  treaty 
of  the  previous  year;  the  Portuguese  treaty  of  1859  provided  that: 

Any  question  which  may  arise  betvv^een  Portuguese  and  Siamese 
subjects  must  be  laid  before  the  Portuguese  Consul,  who,  in  concert  and 
agreement  wdth  the  Siamese  authorities,  will  endeavor  to  settle  it 
amicably  ;  and  in  case  of  not  being  able  to  do  so,  civil  questions  will  be 
decided  by  the  Consul  or  by  the  Siamese  authority,  according  to  the 
nationality  of  the  dehnquent  or  accused  person,  and  in  conformity 
with  the  respective  laws.  The  Consul  will  never  interfere  in  questions 
which  solely  concern  Siamiese  subjects,  nor  the  Siamese  authorities  in 
questions  solely  relating  to  Portuguese  subjects,  except  in  the  case  of 
crimes  in  which  the  delinquents  will  be  taken  into  custody  by  the  local 
authority  and  handed  over  to  the  Portuguese  Consul  to  be  punished 
according  to  the  Portuguese  laws,  or  sent  to  Macao  to  be  tried  there. 

The  Itahan  treaty  of  1868  provided  that: 

Any  dispute  or  controversy  between  Italian  and  Siamese  subjects^ 
shall  be  settled  by  the  Diplomatic  Representative  or  jointly  by  the 
Consuls  and  the  functionaries  of  Siam.  Criminal  cases  shall  be  ad¬ 
judged  by  the  Legation  or  the  Consulates,  if  the  delinquent  be  an  Italian, 
and  by  the  local  authorities  if  he  be  a  Siamese  subject.  But  neither 
the  Legation  nor  the  Consulates  shall  interfere  in  matters  affecting 
Siamese  subjects  only,  nor  shall  the  local  authorities  interfere  in  ques¬ 
tions  relating  purely  to  Italian  subjects. 

All  of  the  treaties,  in  addition  to  the  extraterritorial  provisions,  contained 
substantially  the  same  fiscal  provisions  as  in  the  British  treaty,  restricting 
Siam  to  a  fixed  schedule  of  duties  and  preventing  her  from  imposing  an 
import  tariff  in  excess  of  three  per  cent.  All  were  without  time  limit, 
irrevocable. 

In  1868,  with  the  accession  of  King  Chulalongkorn  to  the  throne  of  Siam, 
a  new  era  began.  Under  the  leadership  of  that  remarkable  king,  telegraphic 
and  mail  communication  was  opened  up  with  foreign  countries,  slavery 
abolished,  railroads  constructed,  irrigation  projects  carried  out,  water 
supply  systems  built,  modern  hospitals  erected,  and  the  whole  kingdom  trans¬ 
formed  and  quickened  with  new  life  and  development.  The  government  of 
the  kingdom  was  radically  and  completely  reorganized,  modern  ministries 

British  and  Foreign  State  Papers,  Vol.  72,  p.  109.  Ibid.,  Vol.  58,  p.  262. 

Ihid.y  Vol.  53,  p.  741.  Ibid.,  Vol  69,  p.  1135. 

18  Ibid.,  Vol.  59,  p.  405.  i»  Ibid.,  Vol.  60,  pp.  773,  783. 

2o/6td.,  Vol.  61,  p.  1308.  21  jud.,  Vol.  61,  p.  483. 

22  Article  II.  23  Article  VI. 

**  Article  IX.  See  also  the  explanatory  declaration  of  Dec.  10, 1868.  British  and  Foreign 
State  Papers,  Vol.  60,  p.  783. 


22 


were  established,  and  an  efficient  system  of  law  courts  was  set  up  to  ad¬ 
minister  justice  along  Western  lines.  Recognizing  the  fundamental  im¬ 
portance  of  modern  law,  the  king  created  a  royal  commission  to  study  the 
problem  of  legal  administration  for  Siam  and  to  draft  carefully  prepared 
codes  of  law  based  on  the  best  European  codes.  By  the  time  of  his  death 
in  1910,  this  tireless  and  able  sovereign  had  completely  transformed  the  old 
Siam  into  a  progressive,  vigorous,  modern  state. 

With  the  changed  conditions,  abuses  began  to  make  themselves  felt. 
Extraterritoriality  fitted  well  enough  an  Oriental  kingdom  innocent  of 
Western  law  or  Western  institutions;  it  did  not  fit  a  country  with  modern 
courts  administering  Western  law  and  with  a  well-developed  sense  of  in¬ 
ternational  responsibility.  Yet  the  European  nations  insisted  on  not  only 
maintaining  it  for  their  European  subjects,  but  even  extending  it  so  as  to 
cover  all  those  born  in  the  Asiatic  colonies  which  they  were  fast  acquiring, 
since  such  colonials  were  in  point  of  law  European  subjects.  As  a  result, 
Siam  was  deprived  of  jurisdiction  over  hosts  of  Cambodians,  Annamites 
and  Laos  from  Indo-China,  Javanese,  Malayans,  Burmese,  Chinese  born 
in  Macao  or  Hongkong,  and  East  Indians,  even  though  residing  permanently 
and  perhaps  doing  an  extensive  business  in  Siam.  Whatever  violations  of 
Siamese  law  they  might  commit,  Siam  was  powerless  to  touch  them  or  their 
property.  They  could  be  tried  only  in  foreign  consular  courts ;  these  courts 
in  practice  not  infrequently  refused  to  apply  the  laws  of  Siam,  and  were  often 
presided  over  by  men  who  had  no  legal  training  whatsoever.  In  addition 
to  these  thousands  of  Asiatic  subjects,  the  treaty  provisions  were  made  to 
include  foreign  proteges  as  well;  and  foreign  protection  thus  came  to  be 
claimed  not  only  for  subjects  born  in  Asiatic  colonies  but  for  such  Chinese 
or  other  Asiatics  as  any  European  Power  chose  to  enroll  at  its  consulate. 
It  was  only  natural  that  out  of  such  a  system  abuses  should  grow;  those 
desirous  of  avoiding  police  interference  or  arrest — smugglers,  gamblers, 
disreputable  characters — often  resorted  to  foreign  papers  as  a  wise  measure 
of  protection.  If,  in  spite  of  their  precautions,  they  should  be  unlucky 
enough  to  be  caught,  they  felt  confident  of  more  lenient  treatment  before 
many  of  the  foreign  consuls,  who  were  ordinarily  not  permitted  under  their 
laws  to  impose  any  kind  of  drastic  punishment  and  who  were  popularly 
expected  to  favor  their  own  subjects.  There  were  even  times  when  foreign 
papers  came  to  be  surreptitiously  bought  and  sold  at  so  much  a  head  by 
underlings  in  the  foreign  legations. 

The  treaties  exempted  foreigners  from  the  jurisdiction  of  Siamese  courts. 
The  Western  nations  insisted  that  these  provisions  should  be  interpreted 
as  carrying  exemption  from  Siamese  legislation  as  well,  except  such  as  the 
Western  nations  might  choose  to  accept.  As  a  result,  further  progress 
became  increasingly  difficult.  When  Siam  passed  an  education  law  provid¬ 
ing  for  compulsory  general  education,  its  enforcement  was  prevented  in 
certain  communities  because  one  of  the  Western  nations  refused  to  accept 


23 


it  and  therefore  objected  to  its  enforcement  against  its  Asiatic  subjects. 
When  Siam  was  asked  to  adhere  to  the  International  Convention  for  the 
Protection  of  Industrial  Property  she  was  obhged  to  confess  her  inability 
to  do  so;  for  when  in  1914  she  had  promulgated  a  law  for  the  protection  of 
trademarks  and  trade-names,  she  soon  found  that  it  was  foreigners  who  were 
chiefly  violating  the  law,  and  the  practice  proved  so  profitable  that  not  every 
treaty  Power  could  be  induced  to  accept  it,  so  that  the  protection  of  trade¬ 
marks  as  required  by  the  international  convention  was  a  practical  impos¬ 
sibility.  Siam  began  to  find  herself  in  a  position  where  she  was  unable  to 
enforce  progressive  legislation  without  first  winning  the  consent  of  the 
Foreign  Offices  of  most  of  the  nations  in  Europe, 

Further  progress  was  menaced  by  the  fiscal  provisions  of  the  treaties  no 
less  than  by  the  jurisdictional  ones.  From  a  material  viewpoint  progress 
costs  money.  The  spread  of  education,  the  organization  of  an  efficient 
judicial  system,  the  undertaking  of  increased  police  regulation,  the  renuncia¬ 
tion  of  opium  revenues,  the  securing  of  competent  foreign  advisers  and 
helpers,  all  swell  current  expenditures.  For  various  practical  reasons  in¬ 
creased  revenue  from  taxation  seemed  impossible  or  inadvisable.  Normally 
the  situation  would  be  met  by  increased  revenue  from  tariff.  But  the  fiscal 
provisions  of  the  old  treaties  holding  the  Siamese  import  tariff  down  to  three 
per  cent,  made  this  impossible.  After  1920  the  time  seemed  approaching 
when  further  progress  might  be  prevented  by  Siam^s  inabifity  to  meet  its 
financial  cost  because  of  the  treaty  provisions. 

Long  before  the  death  of  King  Chulalongkorn  in  1910,  Siam  had  sought  in 
every  possible  way  to  free  herself  from  the  shackles  of  the  treaty  restrictions, 
but  in  vain.  As  a  small  nation  she  lay  at  the  mercy  of  the  more  powerful 
European  states;  and  these  saw  no  reason  for  relinquishing  the  privileges  and 
advantages  which  they  had  secured.  By  the  beginning  of  the  twentieth 
century,  apart  from  special  arrangements  for  some  of  the  northern  states, 
the  most  that  Siam  had  been  able  to  attain  were  agreements  with  certain 
of  the  treaty  Powers  to  prevent  the  wholesale  creation  of  prot^g^s  and  to 
fix  definite  limits  to  the  groups  entitled  to  foreign  protection  and  exemptions. 
Thus,  under  the  British  agreement  of  November  29,  1899,^®  although  Great 

British  and  Foreign  State  Papers,  Vol.  91,  p.  101.  It  was  agreed  that  registration 
should  be  confined  to  the  following  categories  of  persons: 

“1.  All  British  natural  born  or  naturahzed  subjects  other  than  those  of  Asiatic  descent. 

“2.  All  children  and  grandchildren  born  in  Siam  of  persons  entitled  to  be  registered  under 
the  first  category,  who  are  entitled  to  the  status  of  British  subjects  in  contemplation  of 
EngHsh  law.  Neither  greatgrandchildren  nor  illegitimate  children  born  in  Siam  of  persons 
mentioned  in  the  first  category  are  entitled  to  be  registered. 

‘‘3.  AU  persons  of  Asiatic  descent,  born  within  the  Queen’s  dominions,  or  naturalized 
within  the  United  Kingdom,  or  born  within  the  territory  of  any  Prince  or  State  in  India 
under  the  suzerainty  of  or  in  alliance  with  the  Queen;  except  natives  of  Upper  Burma  or  the 
British  Shan  States  who  became  domiciled  in  Siam  before  January  1st,  1886. 

“4.  All  children  born  in  Siam  of  persons  entitled  to  be  registered  under  the  third  category. 


24 


Britain  insisted  on  rights  of  extraterritoriality  for  the  children  of  all  British 
subjects,  and  even  for  the  grandchildren  of  European  British  subjects, 
although  born  and  resident  all  their  lives  in  Siam,  she  consented  that  great¬ 
grandchildren  of  European  and  grandchildren  of  Asiatic  British  subjects 
should  not  be  entitled  to  rights  of  extraterritoriality.  Somewhat  similar 
agreements  were  made  with  The  Netherlands  on  May  1,  1901,  with  France 
in  1904,  with  Denmark^^  in  1905,  and  with  Italy^^  in  the  same  year.  Bene¬ 
ficial  as  these  agreements  were,  they  did  not  of  course  check  the  fraudulent 
obtaining  of  foreign  papers  by  misrepresentation  or  corruption;  and  although 
they  put  a  limit  upon  some  of  the  abuses  to  which  the  system  of  extrater¬ 
ritoriality  lent  itself,  they  in  no  way  cured  the  evils  of  extraterritoriality 
itself. 

Meanwhile  changed  conditions  in  certain  of  the  northern  provinces  made 
it  necessary  as  early  as  1883  to  modify  somewhat  the  strict  provisions  of  the 
British  treaty  of  1855.  With  the  opening  up  of  the  northern  part  of  Siam, 
Burmese,  Shans  and  other  Asiatics  entitled  to  British  protection  gradually 
entered  the  northern  provinces  and  took  up  their  residence  there  in  increasing 
numbers.  Under  the  stipulations  of  the  1855  treaty,  this  native  population 
was,  on  the  one  hand,  entitled  to  all  the  privileges  of  extraterritoriality  and 
yet,  on  the  other,  strictly  speaking,  as  British  subjects  they  were  debarred 
from  residing  there  at  all.  To  meet  the  altered  conditions  for  which  the 
provisions  of  the  treaty  of  1855  had  become  unsuitable,  a  new  treaty  was 
made  in  1883 applicable  to  the  northern  provinces  alone.  The  problem  of 
jurisdiction  over  these  Asiatic  British  subjects  was  solved  in  a  most  interest¬ 
ing  way.  The  treaty  provided  that  all  cases,  both  civil  and  criminal,  arising 
in  the  northern  provinces  of  Chiengmai,  Lakon  and  Lampoonchi  between 
British  subjects,  or  in  which  a  British  subject  might  be  a  party  as  complain¬ 
ant,  accused,  plaintiff  or  defendant,  should  be  tried  according  to  Siamese  law 
by  a  special  Siamese  court  sitting  in  Chiengmai,  presided  over  by  a  Siamese 
commissioner  and  judge,  under  the  proviso,  however,  (1)  that  the  British  con¬ 
sul  residing  at  Chiengmai  should  always  have  the  right  to  be  present  at  the 
trial  if  he  so  desired  and  to  make  such  suggestions  to  the  judge  as  he  might 


No  grandchildren  born  in  Siam  of  persons  mentioned  in  the  third  category  are  entitled  to  be 
registered  for  protection  in  Siam , 

“5.  The  wives  and  widows  of  any  persons  who  are  entitled  to  be  registered  under  the  fore¬ 
going  categories.” 

2®  Articles  10  and  11  of  Franco-Siamese  Treaty  of  1904.  See  British  and  Foreign  State 
Papers,  Vol.  97,  p.  961. 

2^  Article  I  of  Danish  treaty  of  March  24,  1905.  British  and  Foreign  State  Papers,  Vol. 
101,  p.  289. 

28  Article  I  of  Italian  treaty  of  April  8,  1905.  British  and  Foreign  State  Papers,  Vol.  101, 
p.  409. 

28  British  and  Foreign  State  Papers,  Vol.  74,  p.  78.  Many  of  the  provisions  of  this  treaty 
were  taken  from  the  treaty  of  January  14, 1874,  between  Siam  and  the  Government  of  India. 
See  British  and  Foreign  State  Papers,  Vol.  66,  p.  537. 


25 


think  fit  in  the  interests  of  justice,  (2)  that  the  British  consul  should  have  the 
power  at  any  time  before  judgment  to  evoke  out  of  the  Siamese  court  any  case 
in  which  a  British  subject  might  be  defendant  or  accused,  in  which  event  the 
case  would  forthwith  be  transferred  for  adjudication  to  the  British  consular 
court  at  Chiengmai,  and  (3)  that  in  both  civil  and  criminal  cases  in  which 
a  British  subject  might  be  a  party,  either  party  might  appeal  to  Bangkok, 
in  which  case,  if  the  accused  or  defendant  were  a  British  subject,  the  final 
decision  on  appeal  should  rest  with  the  British  Consul  General.  In  other 
words,  in  certain  of  the  northern  provinces  henceforth  Great  Britain  would 
allow  Siam  to  apply  its  own  law  and  to  exercise  jurisdiction  over  British 
subjects  on  sufferance;  but  this  power  would  always  be  subject  to  Great 
Britain’s  right  to  evoke  from  the  Siamese  court  any  case  where  the  defendant 
or  accused  was  a  British  subject,  and  try  it  herself,  or  to  appeal  from  the 
Siamese  judgment  and  render  the  appeal  judgment  herself.  It  was  an 
interesting  solution  for  a  difficult  problem;  its  justification  would  depend 
entirely  upon  the  ability  of  the  Siamese  courts  to  administer  efficient  justice. 

Subsequent  events  more  than  justified  the  experiment.  The  competency 
of  the  Siamese  courts  was  evidenced  by  the  remarkably  small  number  of 
cases  evoked  under  the  provisions  of  the  treaty.  From  the  British  view¬ 
point,  so  satisfactory  did  the  arrangement  prove  that  not  only  was  it  contin¬ 
ued  in  force  without  change  and  even  extended  to  a  number  of  other  northern 
provinces,^®  but  twenty  six  years  later,  when  the  British  treaty  of  1909  came 
to  be  written,  the  arrangement  of  the  treaty  of  1883  was  extended  to  all 
British  pre-registered  subjects  throughout  Siam.^^ 

The  satisfactory  nature  of  this  arrangement  caused  France  to  adopt  very 
similar  provisions  in  the  Franco-Siamese  Treaty  of  1904. Article  XII  of 
that  treaty,  after  providing  that  all  French  citizens,  subjects  and  proteges  in 
Siam  should  continue  to  be  exempt  from  the  jurisdiction  of  Siamese  courts, 
went  on  to  provide  that,  as  an  exception  in  the  northern  provinces  of  Chieng¬ 
mai,  Lakon,  Lampoonchi  and  Nan,  ail  civil  and  criminal  cases  concerning 
French  resortissants  (including  French  citoyens)  should  be  brought  before 
the  ‘‘Siamese  International  Court,”  with  the  proviso  that  the  French  consul 
should  have  the  right  to  assist  in  the  hearings  and  to  evoke  and  try  himself 
all  cases  in  which  the  defendant  was  French  or  a  French  protege.  This  so- 
called  “Siamese  International  Court”  was  not  in  fact  international  at  all. 
It  was  only  a  new  name  for  the  Siamese  tribunal  created  under  the  British 
treaty  of  1883,  a  court  created  by  and  entirely  within  the  control  of  the 
Siamese  Government,  presided  over  by  a  judge  chosen  and  paid  solely  by 

Extended  to  Muang  Nan  and  Phre  by  exchanges  of  notes  dated  December  31,  1884,  and 
January  10, 1885,  and  to  Muang  Than,  Raheng,  Sawankalok,  Sukothai,  Utaradit  and  Pichai 
by  notes  dated  September  29,  October  28, 1898.  British  and  Foreign  State  Papers,  Vol.  88, 
pp.  33-35. 

Article  V  of  British  treaty  of  1909.  British  and  Foreign  State  Papers,  Vol.  102,  p.  127. 

British  and  Foreign  State  Papers,  Vol.  97,  p.  961. 


26 


the  Siamese  Government.  It  was  international  only  in  the  sense  that  its 
jurisdiction  was  confined  to  cases  in  which  foreigners  were  parties  and  by 
virtue  of  treaty  provisions  foreign  consuls  had  the  right  to  be  present  at  its 
sessions  and  to  evoke  certain  of  its  cases.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  however, 
under  the  French  treaty  of  1904,  as  under  the  British  treaty  of  1883,  in  prac¬ 
tice  the  right  of  evocation  was  exercised  only  in  rare  instances.  Very 
similar  provisions,  also  applicable  to  the  northern  provinces  alone,  were 
adopted  shortly  afterwards  in  the  Danish  treaty  of  1905,^^  and  in  the  Itahan 
treaty  of  the  same  year.^^ 

Except  for  these  special  arrangements  covering  certain  of  the  northern 
provinces,  however,  nationals  of  the  treaty  Powers  still  continued  altogether 
exempt  from  Siamese  jurisdiction.  In  1898  Siam  had  entered  into  a  treaty 
with  Japan  which  granted  rights  of  extraterritoriality  to  Japanese  subjects 
in  Siam,  but  recognized  that  the  system  of  extraterritoriality  should  be  a 
temporary  expedient  and  made  it  terminable  with  the  completion  of  “the 
judicial  reforms  of  Siam,’^  z.e.,  the  coming  into  force  of  the  Siamese  codes  of 
law.  In  1899  Siam  had  signed  a  declaration  with  Russia,^®  granting  each  to 
the  other  most-favored-nation  treatment  with  respect  to  jurisdiction,  com¬ 
merce  and  navigation,  terminable,  however,  by  either  party  at  any  time  upon 
six  months  notice.  Apart  from  the  special  northern  arrangements,  therefore, 
Siamese  courts  were  powerless  to  enforce  obedience  to  Siamese  law  upon  the 
thousands  of  British,  French,  American,  Danish,  Portuguese,  Dutch, 
German,  Swedish,  Norwegian,  Belgian,  Italian,  Austrian,  Spanish,  Japanese 
and  Russian  subjects  and  proteges  resident  in  Siam;  and,  except  in  the  case 
of  the  handful  of  Japanese  and  Russians  there  resident,  there  seemed  no 
possible  way  to  remedy  a  situation  which  was  growing  every  year  more 
difficult. 

A  new  phase  in  Siam’s  battle  to  regain  jurisdictional  autonomy  was  marked 
by  the  treaty  of  1907  with  France  and  that  of  1909  with  Great  Britain. 
Thousands  of  French  Asiatic  subjects  and  proteges  live  in  Siam;  and  inas¬ 
much  as  large  parts  of  French  Indo-China  were  carved  at  various  times  out 
of  Siam,  and  the  inhabitants  of  these  territories  are  therefore  in  fact  closely 
assimilated  to  the  Siamese,  there  seemed  inherently  no  reason  why  they 
should  be  treated  in  Siam  differently  from  the  Siamese.  Yet  under  the 
French  treaty  of  1856,  as  interpreted  in  practice  and  as  reaffirmed  in  the 
treaty  of  1904,  apart  from  the  northern  provinces,  all  these  Asiatics  as 
French  subjects  and  proteges  were  entitled  to  exemption  from  Siamese 
jurisdiction. 

The  right  of  land  ownership  in  Siam  also  came  into  question.  Under  the 
early  treaties  foreign  traders  were  given  the  right  to  acquire  and  own  land 

Article  VI  (b).  British  and  Foreign  State  Papers,  Vol.  101,  p.  289. 

Article  III,  subsect.  3.  British  and  Foreign  State  Papers,  Vol.  101,  p.  409. 

British  and  Foreign  State  Papers,  Vol.  90,  pp.  66,  70. 

»•  Ibid.,  Vol.  92,  p.  109. 


27 


and  establish  a  permanent  residence  in  Siam  only  in  or  near  Bangkok; 
beyond  a  distance  of  24  hours’  journey  from  Bangkok  foreign  subjects  were 
allowed  neither  to  go  without  a  passport  nor  to  acquire  land.^^  The  pro¬ 
visions  of  these  early  treaties  still  remained  in  force;  consequently,  when 
portions  of  Siam  were  annexed  to  French  Indo-China,  the  inhabitants,  as 
well  as  other  Laos,  Cambodians  and  Annamites,  resident  in  Indo-China, 
by  virtue  of  their  becoming  French  subjects  or  proteges  lost  the  right  to 
acquire  land  in  the  interior  of  Siam. 

Because  of  the  manifest  absurdity  of  continuing  to  apply  the  provisions  of 
the  old  treaties,  framed  for  European  traders,  to  Asiatic  subjects  and  pro¬ 
teges,  a  special  arrangement  was  worked  out  in  a  new  French  treaty  signed 
on  March  23,  1907,^®  dealing  with  the  status  of  French  Asiatic  subjects  in 
Siam.  Under  this  treaty  French  Asiatic  subjects  and  proteges  were  in  gen¬ 
eral  assimilated  to  Siamese.  They  were  henceforth  not  to  enjoy  rights  of 
extraterritoriality,  but  to  be  subject  to  Siamese  courts  and  liable  for  the 
ordinary  Siamese  taxes.  On  the  other  hand,  the  treaty  expressly  provided 
that  they  should  be  entitled  henceforth  in  every  part  of  Siam  to  all  the  rights 
and  privileges  enjoyed  by  Siamese  subjects,  particularly  the  right  to  acquire 
land  and  the  right  to  go  or  settle  anywhere  in  the  kingdom.  With  regard  to 
the  jurisdiction  of  Siamese  courts,  a  distinction  was  drawn  between  those 
Asiatics  registered  prior  to  the  date  of  the  treaty,  henceforth  known  as 
preregistered  subjects,”  and  those  registered  after  1907,  known  thenceforth 
as  ‘'postregistered  subjects.”  The  jurisdiction  of  the  so-called  interna¬ 
tional  courts”  of  the  1904  convention  was  extended  so  as  to  cover  all  pre¬ 
registered  French  Asiatic  subjects  and  prot4g6s  throughout  the  whole  of 
Siam,  with  the  right  of  a  French  consul  to  be  present  at  the  trial  and  the  right 
to  evoke  the  case  and  try  it  himself  should  he  see  fit  to  do  so;  whereas  all 
French  Asiatic  subjects  and  prot4g4s  registered  after  1907  would  henceforth 
be  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  ordinary  Siamese  courts,  without  any 
rights  of  evocation.  The  regime  of  ^international  courts”  was  to  end  upon 
the  promulgation  and  putting  into  force  of  all  the  Siamese  codes  of  law.^° 
As  to  French  European  citizens  and  subjects,  however,  the  treaty  of  1907 
made  no  change.  All  French  non-Asiatic  citizens,  subjects  and  prot^g4s 
were  to  continue  to  enjoy  rights  of  extraterritoriality  as  under  the  treaty  of 
1856;  and  the  fiscal  provisions  of  that  treaty,  including  the  three  per  cent, 
tariff  restriction,  were  continued  in  full  force  and  without  limit  of  time.^^ 
The  Jurisdiction  Protocol  attached  to  the  treaty  contained  two  further 
provisions  concerning  the  functioning  of  the  international  courts.  One  of 

See,  for  instance,  British  treaty  of  1855,  Art.  IV. 

British  and  Foreign  State  Papers,  Vol.  100,  p.  1028. 

Article  VI. 

l.e.,  the  Penal  Code,  the  Civil  and  Commercial  Codes,  the  Codes  of  Procedure,  and  the 
Law  for  Organization  of  Courts. 

«  Art.  VII. 


28 


them  provided  that  judgments  of  appeal  from  international  courts  of  first 
instance  must  bear  the  signature  of  two  European  judges, thus  introducing 
into  the  treaty  the  requirement  of  European  advisers  sitting  as  judges  in 
Siamese  courts.  The  other  provision  concerned  the  right  of  evocation 
allowable  to  preregistered  Asiatic  subjects.  It  provided  that  the  right 
should  terminate  as  to  all  matters  coming  within  the  scope  of  Siamese  codes 
or  laws  duly  promulgated  and  put  into  force. Under  the  French  treaty  of 
1907,  therefore,  Siam  regained  judicial  autonomy  over  French  Asiatic  sub¬ 
jects  and  proteges,  but  only  for  a  heavy  price.  Siam  had  to  grant  to  them 
every  right  and  privilege  enjoyed  by  Siamese  subjects  as  such;  she  had  to 
submit  to  the  requirement  of  European  legal  advisers  sitting  in  a  Court  of 
Appeals,  at  least  for  a  limited  period ;  and  in  addition  the  treaty  was  sealed 
by  Siam’s  cession  to  France  of  further  Siamese  territory,  i.e.,  the  territory 
of  Battambang,  Siem  Reap  and  Sisophon.  In  spite  of  this  heavy  price, 
all  French  European  subjects  and  proteges  continued  exempt  from  Siamese 
jurisdiction;  and  every  one  of  the  burdensome  fiscal  restrictions  of  the  treaty 
of  1856  was  continued  in  full  force. 

The  French  treaty  of  1907  was  followed  by  the  British  treaty  of  March  10, 
1909. Twenty-six  years  of  actual  experience  with  the  Siamese  administra¬ 
tion  of  justice  in  the  international  court  in  the  north  under  the  treaty  of  1883 
had  convinced  the  British  that,  under  proper  safeguards  and  guarantees, 
British  interests  could  safely  be  entrusted  to  Siamese  courts.  The  British 
treaty  of  1909  therefore  was  built  upon  the  principle  of  renouncing  for  a 
price  the  general  rights  of  extraterritoriality  for  British  subjects,  but  re¬ 
taining  such  safeguards  and  guarantees  as  adequately  to  protect  British 
interests.  The  treaty  accordingly  provided  that  the  system  of  interna¬ 
tional  courts,  together  with  the  right  of  evocation,  inaugurated  for  the  north 
in  the  treaty  of  1883,  should  be  extended  so  as  to  cover  all  British  subjects  in 
Siam  registered  at  the  British  consulate  before  March  10,  1909,  the  date  of 
the  treaty.  All  British  subjects  registered  after  1909  were  henceforth  to  be 
subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  ordinary  Siamese  courts.  As  in  the  case 
of  the  French  treaty  of  1907,  the  right  of  evocation  from  international  courts 
was  to  cease  in  all  matters  coming  within  the  scope  of  codes  or  laws  regularly 
promulgated  and  communicated  to  the  British  Legation  at  Bangkok,  and  the 
system  of  international  courts  was  to  come  to  an  end  upon  the  promulgation 
and  coming  into  force  of  all  the  Siamese  codes  of  law.  Judgments  on  appeal 
from  either  the  international  courts  or  the  ordinary  Siamese  courts  must 
bear  the  signature  of  two  European  judges. 

The  most  noteworthy  feature  introduced  into  the  British  treaty  of  1909, 
however,  related  to  the  use  of  foreign  judicial  advisers.  Section  4  of  the 
Jurisdiction  Protocol  annexed  to  the  1909  treaty  provided  that  “in  all  cases 

^2  Clause  V.  Clause  IV. 

British  and  Foreign  State  Papers,  Vol.  102,  p.  12G. 

Article  V;  Annex  II,  sec.  3. 


29 


whether  in  the  international  courts  or  in  the  ordinary  Siamese  Courts  in 
which  a  British  subject  is  defendant  or  accused,  a  European  legal  adviser 
shall  sit  in  the  Court  of  First  Instance.  In  cases  in  which  a  British  born  or 
naturalized  subject  not  of  Asiatic  descent  may  be  a  party,  a  European  ad¬ 
viser  shall  sit  as  a  judge  in  the  Court  of  First  Instance,  and  where  such 
British  subject  is  defendant  or  accused  the  opinion  of  the  adviser  shall  pre¬ 
vail.’’  In  other  words  under  the  1909  treaty  no  binding  judgment  could 
thenceforth  be  rendered  against  a  European  British  subject  except  by  a 
European  judge  or  adviser.  As  a  matter  of  fact  the  European  adviser  was 
in  every  sense  a  Siamese  official;  the  Siamese  Government  freely  chose  him, 
paid  him  and  controlled  him.  In  practice  the  European  advisers  have  been 
chiefly  British  and  French,  and  they  have  generally  acted  quite  independ¬ 
ently  of  the  desires  and  wishes  of  the  British  and  French  Legations.  Never¬ 
theless,  the  very  fact  that  the  treaty  in  absolute  terms  required  their  pres¬ 
ence  in  Siamese  courts  caused  a  natural  irritation;  and  to  many  it  seemed  that 
since  Siamese  judges  could  not  of  themselves  render  a  binding  judgment 
against  European  British  subjects,  Siam  by  the  treaty  of  1909  had  gained 
the  shadow  rather  than  the  substance  of  actual  judicial  autonomy.  More¬ 
over,  no  time-limit  had  been  set  to  the  provisions  requiring  the  presence  of 
European  judicial  advisers;  the  requirement  was  as  irrevocable  and  unending 
as  the  provisions  of  the  treaty  of  1855.  Furthermore,  all  the  burdensome 
fiscal  provisions  of  the  old  1855  Treaty,  including  the  three  per  cent,  tariff, 
were  continued  in  full  force.^® 

As  was  the  case  with  the  French  treaty  of  1907,  Siam  had  to  pay  a  heavy 
price  for  the  treaty  of  1909.  Although  in  a  sense  Siam  gained  the  abolition 
of  British  rights  of  extraterritoriality,  she  had  to  agree  (1)  that  henceforth 
without  end  European  legal  advisers  should  sit  in  Siamese  courts  where 
British  subjects  were  defendants  or  British  non- Asiatic  subjects  were  parties; 
and  (2)  that  British  subjects  should  henceforth  enjoy  throughout  the  whole 
extent  of  Siam  the  rights  and  privileges  enjoyed  by  the  natives  of  the  coun¬ 
try,  notably,  the  right  of  property,  the  right  of  residence  and  travel. In 
addition  a  territorial  compensation  was  exacted.  Siam  under  the  treaty 
ceded  to  Great  Britain  the  States  of  Kelantan,  Tringgam,  Kedah,  Perles  and 
adjacent  islands.  Siam  thus  gave  all  that  she  had  to  give  in  return  for  a 
treaty  which  saddled  her  courts  forever  with  foreign  advisers  and  which  still 
maintained  unaltered  the  three  per  cent,  tariff  restriction.  Without  having 
gained  autonomy,  Siam  had  nothing  left  with  which  to  bargain. 

During  the  ten  years  that  followed,  with  the  exception  of  a  treaty  with 
Denmark^^  signed  in  1913,  following  in  general  the  terms  of  the  British  treaty 
of  1909,  Siam  was  unable  to  make  further  progress  on  the  road  to  judicial  or 
fiscal  autonomy.  During  all  these  years,  however,  Siam  kept  steadily  im¬ 
proving  her  administration  of  justice  and  in  countless  ways  manifesting  an 

Article  VII.  Article  VI. 

British  and  Foreign  State  Papers,  Vol.  107,  p.  750. 


30 


extraordinary  progress.  A  Royal  Code  Commission,  with  the  help  of 
French  advisers,  was  slowly  and  patiently  preparing  Siamese  codes  of  law 
modeled  on  the  best  of  the  European  codes.  The  Penal  Code  was  completed 
and  promulgated  in  1908;  following  this,  laws  were  prepared  and  codified  on 
Civil  Obligations,  Things  (Property),  Partnership,  Bankruptcy,  Confiict  of 
Laws,  Family  Registration,  etc.,  etc.  This  work  has  been  done  in  a  most 
painstaking  and  scholarly  manner;  the  Code  Commission  is  still  at  work, 
and  the  final  promulgation  of  all  the  codes  will  probably  not  take  place 
for  at  least  five  years  more.  When  it  came  to  inducing  the  great  Powers 
of  Europe  to  surrender  their  treaty  privileges,  however,  Siam’s  progress 
seemed  to  count  for  little.  All  her  efforts  to  shake  off  the  old  treaty  restric¬ 
tions  proved  unavaifing;  and  the  goal  of  actual  fiscal  and  jurisdictional 
autonomy  seemed  as  far  away  as  ever. 

During  the  World  War,  Siam  joined  the  Allied  Powers  fighting  against 
Germany  for  the  rights  of  small  nations,  and  after  interning  the  Germans 
resident  in  Siam  she  sent  an  expeditionary  force  to  France  composed  largely 
of  aeroplanists.  At  the  end  of  the  war  Siam  at  Versailles  appealed  to  her 
Allies  on  the  strength  of  their  oft-repeated  assertions  that  the  war  was 
really  fought  to  protect  the  rights  of  small  nations  and  to  remove  interna¬ 
tional  injustices  that  make  for  war.  Although  Siam’s  plea  seemed  lost  on 
many  there  present,  the  justice  of  the  appeal  impressed  itself  strongly  on  the 
mind  of  President  Wilson.  He  promised  that  America  would  be  prepared 
to  give  Siam  a  new  treaty  and  would  as  a  matter  of  justice  renounce  without 
compensation  her  rights  of  extraterritoriahty. 

The  result  of  President  Wilson’s  action  was  the  Siamese- American  Treaty 
of  1920,^^  a  treaty  of  epoch-making  importance  for  Siam.  It  began  by 
abolishing  the  right  of  extraterritoriality  set  up  under  the  old  treaty  of 
1856.  All  Americans  were  to  be  henceforth  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  ordinary  Siamese  courts.  To  insure  against  possible  injustice,  however, 
the  treaty  provided  that  until  five  years  after  the  promulgation  of  all  the 
Siamese  codes  of  law,  America  was  to  have  the  right  to  evoke  any  case  in 
which  an  American  was  defendant,  or  accused,  from  any  Siamese  court, 
except  the  Supreme  Court,  and  proceed  to  try  the  case  in  its  own  consular 
court.  If  the  case  were  so  evoked  and  tried  in  an  American  consular  court, 
however,  Siamese  law  was  to  prevail  as  to  all  matters  coming  within  the  scope 
of  Siamese  laws  regularly  promulgated.  The  treaty  contained  no  mention 
of  foreign  legal  advisers.  In  the  British  treaty  of  1909  Great  Britain  had 
placed  its  rehance  upon  two  different  rights,  each  somewhat  contradictory 
in  its  nature  to  the  other,  the  right  of  evocation  and  the  right  of  imposing 
European  legal  advisers  upon  Siamese  courts.  America  refrained  from 
demanding  the  latter  right,  which  could  not  but  prove  a  constant  cause  of 
irritation,  and  placed  its  reliance  instead  upon  the  right  of  evocation,  en- 

S.  Treaty  Series,  No.  655;  British  and  Foreign  State  Papers,  Vol.  113,  p.  1168;  Am. 
Jour.  Int.  Law,  Vol.  16,  Supp.  p,  25. 


31 


larged  in  its  scope  but  strictly  limited  in  its  duration  so  as  to  cease  altogether 
five  years  after  the  promulgation  of  the  Siamese  codes  of  law.  Because  of 
Siam’s  confidence  in  the  competency  of  her  own  courts  and  because  of  the 
time-limit  set  upon  the  right,  Siam  could  willingly  give  to  America  such  an 
enlarged  right  of  evocation;  as  a  matter  of  fact  no  case  has  ever  been  evoked 
under  the  American  treaty. 

So  far  as  fiscal  provisions  were  concerned,  America  recognized  Siam’s 
right  to  complete  fiscal  autonomy,  and  she  agreed  that  the  old  fiscal  restric¬ 
tions  should  be  removed  and  Siam  should  have  the  right  to  raise  its  tariff 
beyond  the  three  per  cent,  limit  against  American  goods  as  soon  as  all  other 
treaty  Powers  having  similar  rights  against  Siam  should  come  to  a  like 
agreement  without  price  or  compensatory  benefit. 

Of  almost  equal  importance  were  the  abrogation  and  termination  provi¬ 
sions.  The  treaty  of  1856  was  abrogated  in  its  entirety;  and  the  new  treaty 
was  made  terminable  after  ten  years  by  either  party  upon  giving  one  year’s 
notice.  A  further  all-important  clause  expressly  provided  that  its  termina¬ 
tion  should  not  have  the  effect  of  reviving  any  of  the  former  treaties  abro¬ 
gated  by  the  new  one.  So  far  as  America  was  concerned,  therefore,  Siam 
was  at  last  freed  from  the  old  extraterritorial  restrictions.  For  this  treaty 
America  demanded  and  received  no  compensation  whatsoever. 

Once  the  American  treaty  was  signed,  Siam  turned  again  to  the  European 
nations  and  asked  them  to  follow  America’s  lead,  but  for  one  reason  or 
another  results  were  not  forthcoming.  Great  Britain  replied  that  she  had 
gone  further  in  the  treaty  of  1909  than  any  other  European  nation;  and  that 
until  other  nations  with  substantial  commercial  interests  had  gone  as  far 
as  she  had  any  discussion  of  further  treaty  revision  would  appear  to  be  pre¬ 
mature.  France  made  favorable  replies;  but  as  the  months  passed  into 
years  and  nothing  definite  materialized  hopes  began  to  fade.  Siam  could 
not  afford  to  cede  any  additional  territory;  and  until  she  could  succeed  in 
separately  persuading  Great  Britain,  France,  Italy,  Holland,  Belgium, 
Denmark,  Norway,  Sweden,  Spain  and  Portugal  each  to  surrender  its  fiscal 
rights  voluntarily,  and  without  compensatory  benefit,  Siam  must  remain 
helplessly  and  permanently  bound  by  the  old  three  per  cent,  tariff  restriction 
in  addition  to  the  existing  rights  of  extraterritoriality.  The  problem  of  how 
to  induce  ten  European  nations,  some  of  whom  had  very  substantial  com¬ 
mercial  interests  in  Siam,  to  give  away  their  rights  for  nothing  seemed 
insoluble;  in  spite  of  the  American  treaty,  Siam  seemed  from  a  practical 
viewpoint  no  nearer  her  goal  than  before. 

In  1923  a  new  treaty  was  negotiated  with  Japan  closely  following  the 
American  treaty  of  1920.  Under  the  Japanese  treaty  of  1898  Japan  enjoyed 
the  three  per  cent.  Siamese  tariff  restriction  only  by  virtue  of  a  most-favored- 
nation  clause,®®  whereas  she  enjoyed  rights  of  extraterritoriality  for  a  limited 
period  by  virtue  of  express  grant. The  new  treaty,  signed  on  March  10, 

“  Article  VI.  “  Procol,  Article  I. 


32 


1924,^2  abrogated  the  existing  rights  of  extraterritoriality,  subject,  however, 
to  the  same  rights  of  evocation  as  under  the  American  treaty,  and  similarly 
provided  that  all  rights  of  evocation  would  cease  five  years  after  the  pro¬ 
mulgation  of  the  Siamese  codes  of  law.  Reciprocal  most-favored-nation 
treatment  with  respect  to  import  duties  was  continued  as  under  the  former 
treaty;  and  the  new  treaty  was  made  terminable  after  ten  years  by  either 
party.  In  substance  Siam  gained  very  little  by  this  new  treaty;  for  although 
under  its  terms  Japanese  subjects  came  immediately  under  the  jurisdiction 
of  Siamese  courts,  the  right  of  evocation  was  made  to  extend  until  five  years 
after  the  promulgation  of  the  Siamese  codes,  whereas  under  the  treaty  of 
1898  extraterritoriality  with  ail  its  attendant  rights  was  to  cease  absolutely 
with  the  promulgation  of  the  codes.  The  chief  value  of  the  new  Japanese 
treaty  lay  in  its  psychological  effect  upon  the  European  nations.  Siam 
could  henceforth  point  to  two  of  the  great  Powers  as  leading  the  way,  and 
ask  the  remaining  great  Powers  to  follow  in  their  lead. 

Experience  had  shown,  however,  that  Siam  could  not  hope  to  induce  the 
various  European  Powers  voluntarily  to  surrender  their  existing  rights 
through  long-distance  negotiations  carried  on  in  Bangkok.  The  force  of 
local  prejudice  and  the  unavoidable  lack  of  understanding  on  the  part  of 
European  Foreign  Offices  of  the  true  conditions  in  Siam  made  it  evident  that 
the  ordinary  and  routine  methods  of  negotiation  could  end  only  in  failure. 
If  success  were  possible  it  could  come  only  through  convincing  the  respon¬ 
sible  officials  in  the  Foreign  Offices  of  each  of  the  treaty  Powers  that  wise 
statesmanship  demanded  the  recognition  of  Siam’s  remarkable  progress  and 
stability  and  the  consequent  freeing  of  her  from  the  shackles  of  extraterri¬ 
toriality  so  that  her  further  development  might  be  unimpeded.  Such 
results  could  come  only  through  direct,  personal  work  in  Europe.  Accord¬ 
ingly,  His  Majesty  King  Rama  VI  decided  to  send  the  Adviser  in  Foreign 
Affairs  as  Siam’s  representative  on  a  roving  commission  to  Europe  to  visit, 
one  after  another,  the  European  Foreign  Offices,  seeking  to  persuade  them 
to  renounce  their  existing  rights  and,  if  he  succeeded  in  this,  to  negotiate  in 
conjunction  with  the  Siamese  Ministers  in  Europe  new  treaties. 

In  the  meantime  conversations  with  the  French  Foreign  Office  which  had 
dragged  along  for  over  three  years  came  to  a  head.  From  the  outset  excep¬ 
tional  difficulties  had  been  encountered  owing  to  the  fact  that  a  new  French 
treaty  necessarily  involved  many  questions  between  Siam  and  her  Eastern 
neighbor,  French  Indo-China,  and  because  of  the  political  situation  in  Paris, 
France  was  anxious  to  avoid  giving  offense  to  Indo-Chinese  opinion  by  the 
relinquishment  of  Indo-Chinese  rights  against  Siam.  It  was  finally  agreed 
that,  except  as  to  jurisdictional  and  fiscal  rights,  all  questions  peculiarly 
affecting  Indo-China  should  be  settled  by  a  separate  Indo-Chinese  conven¬ 
tion  between  Siam  and  France,  negotiated  after  the  main  French  treaty 
directly  between  Bangkok  and  Hanoi.  The  negotiations  for  the  French 

League  of  Nations,  Treaty  Series,  Vol.  31,  p.  187,  Reg.  No.  795. 


33 


treaty  were  then  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  French  Minister  to  Bangkok, 
who  came  from  Paris  to  Bangkok  late  in  1923;  and  during  1924  a  definite 
treaty  text  was  worked  out  covering  all  jurisdictional  and  fiscal  questions  and 
matters  of  general  French  concern.  As  the  treaty  took  definite  form,  how¬ 
ever,  innumerable  complications  arose,  and  protracted  delays  followed. 

In  the  fall  of  1924  Siam’s  Adviser  in  Foreign  Affairs  left  Bangkok  on  his 
European  mission.  Upon  his  arrival  in  Paris,  French  negotiations  were 
taken  up  afresh,  new  obstacles  which  had  arisen  were  overcome,  and  in 
spite  of  difficulties  which  at  one  time  threatened  disaster,  the  treaty  was 
finally  signed  on  February  14,  1925.  This  treaty  was  in  general  based  upon 
the  lines  of  the  American  treaty  of  1920,  but  modifications  were  introduced 
so  as  to  leave  undisturbed  the  existing  position  of  Indo-Chinese  in  Siam. 
Under  its  terms  the  position  of  French  Asiatic  subjects  and  proteges  remain 
as  fixed  by  the  treaty  of  1907,  ix.,  all  those  registered  at  French  consulates 
prior  to  1907,  are  to  be  tried  in  the  so-called  international  courts,  and  all 
those  registered  subsequent  to  1907  in  the  ordinary  Siamese  courts  with  no 
right  of  evocation.  The  system  of  international  courts,  with  the  attendant 
right  of  evocation,  is  to  terminate,  however,  with  the  promulgation  of  all 
the  Siamese  codes  of  law.  French  citizens,  who  would  naturally  complain 
of  treatment  inferior  to  French  Asiatic  subjects  and  proteges,  are  also  to 
be  tried  in  the  international  courts,  but  with  the  right  of  evocation,  as  in 
the  American  treaty,  until  five  years  after  the  promulgation  of  all  the  Siamese 
codes.  Subject  to  these  restrictions,  all  French  extraterritorial  rights  in 
Siam  are  abolished  by  the  new  treaty;  and  as  the  ^^International  Court”  is 
in  reality  a  Siamese  court  with  restrictions,  and  as  all  these  restrictions  have 
definite  and  fixed  time  limits,  the  treaty  means  in  substance  the  grant  of 
actual  judicial  autonomy  to  Siam. 

The  fiscal  provisions  of  the  earlier  treaties  are  also  abrogated.  In  Article 
XV,  closely  following  the  corresponding  article  in  the  American  treaty,  France 
recognizes  Siam’s  right  to  complete  fiscal  autonomy,  and  agrees  that  Siam 
may  raise  its  tariff  on  French  goods  beyond  three  per  cent,  as  soon  as  all  other 
treaty  Powers  having  similar  rights  against  Siam  come  to  a  like  agreement 
voluntarily  and  without  compensatory  benefit.  Until  the  conclusion  of  a 
new  Franco-Siamese  customs  convention,  each  is  to  enjoy  le  traitement  le  plus 
favorable  with  respect  to  its  goods  imported  into  the  other  country.  Ques¬ 
tions  directly  involving  the  relationship  between  Siam  and  its  neighbor, 
French  Indo-China,  are  reserved  for  a  separate  Indo-Chinese  convention. 
With  the  exception  of  provisions  particularly  relating  to  Indo-China,  the 
treaty  of  1856  and  all  subsequent  treaties  and  conventions  are  abrogated. 
As  in  the  American  treaty,  either  party  may  after  ten  years  denounce  the  new 
treaty  on  giving  one  year’s  notice,  but  it  is  expressly  provided  that  such  a 
denunciation  will  not  have  the  effect  of  reviving  any  of  the  former  treaties  or 
conventions  abrogated  by  the  1925  treaty.  The  new  treaty,  in  a  word,  has 
freed  Siam  from  the  burden  of  French  extraterritorial  rights,  and  so  far  as 


34 


France  is  concerned,  has  restored  to  Siam  her  full  fiscal  autonomy,  subject  to 
a  like  grant  by  all  other  treaty  Powers. 

Interesting  arbitration  provisions  were  also  inserted.  A  small  nation  is 
always  at  a  disadvantage  if  international  disputes  are  to  be  settled  by  war, 
especially  if  its  territory  adjoins  a  powerful  neighbor.  A  sweeping  arbitra¬ 
tion  clause  was  therefore  inserted  providing  for  the  compulsory  arbitration 
of  all  questions  whatsoever,  not  excluding  questions  of  vital  interest  or 
national  honor.  Both  parties  agree  ^4n  conformity  to  the  principles  an¬ 
nounced  in  the  Covenant  of  the  League  of  Nations  that  in  case  controversial 
questions  should  arise  between  them  in  the  future  which  cannot  be  settled 
by  mutual  agreement  or  by  the  method  of  diplomacy,  they  will  submit 
the  controversy  to  one  or  more  arbitrators  chosen  by  them,  or  in  default 
of  arbitration  to  the  Permanent  Court  of  International  Justice.  This 
Court  will  obtain  jurisdiction  by  means  of  a  common  agreement  between  the 
two  parties,  or  if  agreement  cannot  be  reached,  by  the  simple  request  of 
either  of  them.^’ 

Immediately  after  the  signature  of  the  French  treaty,  negotiations  were 
begun  at  The  Hague  for  the  conclusion  of  a  new  treaty  with  The  Netherlands. 
This  was  a  matter  of  particularly  large  importance  to  Siam  because  of  the 
great  number  of  Javanese  settled  in  Siam,  all  claiming  extraterritorial  rights 
by  virtue  of  their  Dutch  allegiance.  The  negotiations  thus  inaugurated  were 
successfully  completed  on  June  8, 1925,  when  a  new  treaty  was  signed  at  The 
Hague  following  almost  word  for  word  the  American  treaty  of  1920.  It 
abolished  Dutch  rights  of  extraterritoriality,  acknowledged  Siam^s  full  right 
to  fiscal  autonomy,  abrogated  all  prior  treaties  between  the  two  countries, 
and  was  made  terminable  after  ten  years  by  either  party  upon  giving  one 
year’s  notice. 

In  the  meantime  Siam’s  representative  had  opened  up  negotiations  in 
London  for  a  new  British  treaty.  In  many  respects  this  was  the  most  im¬ 
portant  of  all;  for  British  trade  is  predominant  in  Siam  and  British  interests 
there  are  far  more  substantial  than  those  of  any  other  country.  Over  eighty 
per  cent,  of  Siam’s  export  trade  and  some  sixty-seven  per  cent,  of  her 
import  trade  is  British.  Also,  Siam  is  bordered  by  British  Burma  on  the 
west  and  the  British  Federated  Malay  States  on  the  south,  and  Siam  is 
consequently  filled  with  British  subjects.  The  difficulties  of  securing  a  new 
British  treaty  were,  however,  proportionate  to  its  importance.  The  sub¬ 
stantial  amount  of  British  imports  into  Siam  made  British  merchants  loath 
to  surrender  their  privilege  of  the  three  per  cent,  tariff  restriction;  and  the 
large  value  of  British  interests  in  Siam  militated  against  Great  Britain’s 
being  willing  to  surrender  voluntarily  her  right  of  having  European  legal 
advisers  sit  in  Siamese  courts.  The  diflaculty  was  increased  by  the  fact  that 
under  the  1909  treaty  British  subjects  had  already  been  granted  all  the  rights 
and  privileges  enjoyed  by  native  Siamese.  Siam  had  nothing  more  to  give. 

“  Article  II. 


35 


At  the  opening  interview  which  Siam’s  representative  had  with  Mr. 
Austen  Chamberlain  late  in  February,  Mr.  Chamberlain  frankly  discussed 
the  difficulties  of  Great  Britain’s  then  granting  to  Siam  full  jurisdictional 
and  fiscal  autonomy,  and  confessed  that  the  time  seemed  premature  for  such 
a  step.  Nevertheless,  he  Hstened  attentively  to  the  proposals  of  the  Siamese 
representative,  so  framed  as  to  uphold  Siamese  sovereignty  and  yet  afford 
adequate  protection  to  British  interests;  and  when  the  true  situation  in 
Siam  was  brought  home  to  him,  he  promised  a  reconsideration  of  the  British 
poHcy  toward  Siam  and  the  granting  of  a  new  treaty,  provided  the  experts 
and  leading  representatives  of  the  Foreign  Office,  the  Indian  Office,  the 
Colonial  Office,  and  the  Board  of  Trade  could  be  similarly  convinced.  As  a 
result  of  the  meetings  which  followed  this  interview,  a  new  program  of 
policy  was  formulated  and  a  treaty  finally  agreed  to,  granting  to  Siam  both 
jurisdictional  and  fiscal  autonomy  in  the  same  broad  terms  as  in  the  American 
treaty.  Since  Siam  was  essentially  an  agricultural  country  and  would, 
therefore,  never  desire  a  tariff  for  protection  against  industrial  products, 
British  policy  would  content  itself  with  Siam’s  agreeing  to  a  provision  hmit- 
ing  for  a  fixed  period  the  Siamese  import  tariff  to  moderate,  specified  duties 
on  those  articles  which  constituted  the  bulk  of  British  exports  to  Siam  in 
return  for  Great  Britain’s  granting  to  Siam  the  fiscal  autonomy  to  which 
every  sovereign  nation  should  be  entitled.  Similarly,  Great  Britain  would 
henceforth  content  itself  with  relying  upon  an  enlarged  right  of  evocation, 
terminating  with  the  completion  of  the  Siamese  judicial  reforms,  in  place  of 
the  requirement  of  European  judicial  advisers,  which  at  best  were  Siamese 
officials  and  not  under  foreign  control.  In  a  word.  Great  Britain,  seeing  the 
picture  more  clearly,  would  henceforth  discard  certain  fears,  more  theoretical 
than  real,  and  choose  to  rest  the  future  of  British  trade  in  Siam  upon  a  large 
policy  of  cultivating  Siamese  good-will  rather  than  upon  ironclad  treaty 
restrictions,  bound  to  irritate  while  they  lasted  and  eventually  to  be  swept 
away  by  the  inevitable  march  of  progress. 

In  their  main  outlines  the  new  British  general  and  commercial  treaties 
were  modeled  upon  the  American  treaty.  Except  as  to  boundary  provisions 
all  former  treaties  were  abrogated;  the  requirement  of  legal  advisers  was 
dropped;  all  British  subjects  were  to  be  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  ordinary 
Siamese  courts,  with  the  right  of  evocation  until  five  years  after  the  promul¬ 
gation  of  the  Siamese  codes  of  law;  the  grant  of  fiscal  autonomy  was  made  in 
the  same  words  as  in  the  American  treaty;  and  the  new  treaties  were  made 
terminable  by  either  party  after  ten  years  upon  one  year’s  notice.  These 
treaties,  containing  Great  Britain’s  renunciation  of  her  former  rights,  were 
given  without  compensation  or  price.  This  statesmanlike  move  on  the  part 
of  Great  Britain  the  Siamese  have  not  failed  to  appreciate.  The  British 
general  and  commercial  treaties  were  signed  on  July  14,  1925;  and  a  British 
treaty  of  general  arbitration  on  November  25,  1925. 

In  the  meantime  negotiations  were  being  pushed  in  other  countries. 


36 


In  late  April,  after  various  conferences  at  Lisbon,  the  Portuguese  Ministry 
of  Foreign  Affairs  had  given  its  consent  to  the  renunciation  of  Portuguese 
extraterritorial  rights  and  had  provisionally  agreed  with  Siam’s  representa¬ 
tive  upon  a  treaty  draft  also  closely  following  the  text  of  the  American 
treaty.  In  May,  Madrid  did  the  same;  and  in  late  June,  as  a  result  of 
conferences  held  at  Copenhagen  with  the  Danish  Ministry  of  Foreign 
Affairs,  Denmark  also  agreed  to  a  new  treaty  draft,  following,  except  for 
slight  variations  due  to  local  conditions,  the  American  treaty.  Visits  to 
Stockholm  and  to  Oslo  in  July  produced  similar  happy  results  with  respect 
to  Sweden  and  Norway.  The  new  Spanish  treaty  was  signed  on  August 
8,  1925,  and  the  new  Portuguese  treaty  after  a  somev/hat  troubled  time  on 
August  14th.  By  this  time  the  Scandinavian  treaties  were  practically 
completed.  Apart  from  them  only  the  Italian  and  the  Belgian  treaties 
remained.  Belgium  had  already  agreed  to  a  new  treaty  based  on  the 
American  model,  and  the  treaty  text  was  being  worked  out  in  Bangkok. 
Siam’s  representative  therefore  proceeded  direct  from  Madrid  to  Rome  to 
take  up  negotiations  for  a  new  Italian  treaty.  Italian  interests  in  Siam  are 
comparatively  small,  and  Italy  felt  satisfied  with  the  existing  arrangements 
under  the  old  treaties.  Nevertheless,  after  Premier  Mussolini’s  help  had 
been  enlisted,  obstacles  were  overcome,  and  by  the  end  of  August,  1925, 
a  nevf  Italian  treaty  was  finally  agreed  upon,  also  closely  based  on  the  text 
of  the  American  treaty.  The  Danish  treaty  was  formally  signed  on  Septem¬ 
ber  1,  1925,  the  Swedish  on  December  19,  1925,  the  Italian  on  May  9,  1926, 
the  Belgian  on  July  13,  1926,  and  the  Norv/egian  on  July  16,  1926.  With 
the  ratification®^  of  these  treaties  Siam  has  at  last  won  her  long  struggle  for 
judicial  and  fiscal  autonomy. 

The  dates  of  the  signatiires  and  ratifications  of  the  Treaties  restoring  autonomy  to  Siam 
are  as  follows;  United  States  treaty,  signed  December  16,  1920,  ratifications  exchanged, 
September  1, 1921 ;  Japanese  treaty,  signed  March  10, 1924,  ratifications  exchanged,  December 
22, 1924;  French  treaty,  signed  February  14, 1925,  ratifications  exchanged,  January  12, 1926; 
Netherlands  treaty,  signed  Jime  8,  1925,  ratifications  exchanged,  August  24,  1926;  British 
general  treaty  and  treaty  of  commerce  and  navigation,  signed  July  14,  1925,  ratifications 
exchanged  March  30,  1926;  Spanish  treaty,  signed  August  3,  1925,  ratifications  exchanged, 
July  28,  1926;  Portuguese  treaty,  signed  August  14,  1925,  ratifications  exchanged  July  31, 
1926;  Danish  treaty,  signed  September  1,  1925,  ratifications  exchanged,  March  13,  1926; 
Swedish  treaty,  signed  December  19,  1925,  ratifications  exchanged,  October  25,  1926; 
Itahan  treaty,  signed  May  9,  1926,  ratifications  exchanged  March  18,  1927;  Belgian  treaty, 
signed  July  13,  1926,  ratifications  exchanged,  March  25,  1927;  Norwegian  treaty,  signed 
July  16,  1926,  ratifications  exchanged,  February  9,  1927. 

The  registration  numbers  and  the  citations  in  the  League  of  Nations  Treaty  Series  are  as 
follows:  Japanese  treaty,  Reg.  No.  795,  Treaty  Series,  Vol.  31,  p.  187;  French  treaty,  Reg. 
No.  1055,  Treaty  Series,  Vol.  43,  p.  193;  Netherlands  treaty,  Reg.  No.  1323,  Treaty  Series, 
Vol.  56,  p.  57;  British  general  treat3^,  Reg.  No.  1175,  Treaty  Series,  Vol.  49,  p.  29;  British 
treaty  of  commerce  and  navigation,  Reg.  No.  1176,  Treaty  Series,  Vol.  49,  p.  51;  British 
treaty  of  arbitration,  Reg.  No.  1487;  Spanish  treaty,  Reg.  No.  1303,  Treaty  Series,  Vol.  55, 
p.  39;  Portuguese  treaty,  Reg.  No.  1304,  Treaty  Series,  Vol.  55,  p.  57;  Danish  treaty,  Reg. 
No.  1131,  Treaty  Series,  Vol.  47,  p.  103;  Swedish  treaty,  Reg.  No.  1386;  Itahan  treaty,  Reg. 


37 


Under  the  provisions  of  the  new  treaties,  Siam  is  now  free  of  all  the  old 
fiscal  restrictions,  and  has  already  put  into  force  a  new  tariff  increasing  by 
very  slight  amounts  the  tariff  on  a  few  widely  used  commodities,  so  as  to 
derive  sufficient  revenue  to  meet  the  current  needs  of  the  state.  Extra¬ 
territoriality  in  Siam  is  now  a  thing  of  the  past;  and  such  jurisdictional  re¬ 
strictions  as  still  remain,  such  as  the  right  of  evocation,  will  cease  altogether 
five  years  after  the  promulgation  of  the  Siamese  codes.  The  old,  one-sided, 
irrevocable  treaties  are  gone ;  and  in  their  place  stand  modern  treaties,  freely 
terminable  after  ten  years  by  either  party.  For  modern  Siam  a  new  era 
opens. 

Progress,  irresistible,  cannot  be  stayed  by  the  chains  and  shackles  of 
unyielding  treaty  restrictions.  If  wise  statesmanship  fails  to  loosen  or 
remove  them,  no  matter  what  their  strength,  they  will  be  forcefully  shattered. 
The  outstanding  feature  in  the  story  of  Siam’s  struggle  for  autonomy  is  the 
open-mindedness  and  liberality  of  the  Foreign  Offices  of  Europe  during  the 
period  following  the  World  War,  once  the  issues  were  made  really  clear  to 
them.  What  was  inevitable  sooner  or  later  has  come,  not  through  blood  and 
fighting,  but  through  the  method  of  large-visioned  statesmanship  and  peace. 
As  a  result,  instead  of  the  folly  and  waste  of  war,  gain  will  come  to  all. 


No.  1436;  treaty  with  Belgium  and  Luxemburg,  Reg.  No.  1468;  Norwegian  treaty,  Reg. 
No.  1404. 


TREATY  BETWEEN  THE  UNITED  KINGDOM  AND  SIAM  FOR  THE  REVISION 
OF  THEIR  MUTUAL  TREATY  ARRANGEMENTS  AND  PROTOCOL 
CONCERNING  JURISDICTION  APPLICABLE  IN  SIAM 
TO  BRITISH  SUBJECTS,  ETC.^ 

Signed  at  London,  July  I4,  1925;  ratifications  exchanged,  March  30,  1926. 

His  Majesty  the  King  of  the  United  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and 
Ireland  and  of  the  British  Dominions  beyond  the  Seas,  Emperor  of  India, 
and  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Siam,  being  desirous  of  maintaining  and 
strengthening  the  relations  of  friendship  which  happily  exist  between  them, 
have  resolved  to  proceed  to  a  revision  of  their  mutual  treaty  arrangements, 
and  have  for  that  purpose  named  as  their  plenipotentiaries,  that  is  to  say: 

His  Majesty  the  King  of  the  United  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland 
and  of  the  British  Dominions  beyond  the  Seas,  Emperor  of  India:  The  Right 
Honourable  Joseph  Austen  Chamberlain,  a  Member  of  Parliament,  His 
Majesty’s  Principal  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs;  and 

His  Majesty  the  King  of  Siam:  Phya  Prabha  Karawongse,  His  Envoy 
Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  at  the  Court  of  His  Britannic 
Majesty; 

Who,  after  having  communicated  to  each  other  their  respective  full 
powers,  found  in  good  and  due  form,  have  agreed  upon  the  following  articles: 

Article  1 

His  Britannic  Majesty  recognises  that  the  principle  of  national  autonomy 
shall  apply  to  the  Kingdom  of  Siam  in  all  that  pertains  to  the  imposition  of 
customs  duties  on  the  importation  and  exportation  of  merchandise,  to  draw¬ 
backs  and  to  transit  and  all  other  taxes  and  impositions;  and,  subject  to  the 
condition  of  equality  of  treatment  with  other  nations  in  these  respects,  His 
Britannic  Majesty  agrees  to  assent  to  the  imposition  in  Siam  of  customs 
duties  higher  than  those  established  by  existing  treaties;  on  the  further 
condition,  however,  that  all  other  nations  entitled  to  claim  the  benefit  of 
special  rates  of  customs  duties  in  Siam  assent  to  such  higher  duties  freely  and 
without  the  requirement  of  any  compensatory  benefit  or  privilege. 

Article  2 

The  subjects  of  each  of  the  high  contracting  parties  shall  have  free  access 
to  the  courts  of  justice  of  the  other  in  pursuit  and  defence  of  their  rights; 
they  shall  be  at  liberty,  equally  with  native  subjects  and  with  the  subjects  or 
citizens  of  the  most  favoured  nation,  to  choose  and  employ  lawyers,  advo¬ 
cates  and  representatives  to  pursue  and  defend  their  rights  before  such 
courts.  There  shall  be  no  conditions  or  requirements  imposed  upon  British 
subjects  in  connection  with  such  access  to  the  courts  of  justice  in  Siam,  which 

*  British  Treaty  Series  No.  7  (1926).  Cmd.  2642. 

38 


39 


do  not  apply  to  native  subjects  or  to  the  subjects  or  citizens  of  the  most 
favoured  nation. 

Aeticle  3 

The  subjects  of  each  of  the  high  contracting  parties  shall  be  entitled  in  the 
territories  of  the  other,  provided  that  they  comply  with  the  laws  and  regula¬ 
tions  in  force,  to  engage  in  religious  and  charitable  work,  to  open  and  conduct 
educational  establishments,  and  to  do  anything  incidental  to  or  necessary  for 
those  purposes,  upon  the  same  terms  as  native  subjects. 

The  subjects  of  each  of  the  high  contracting  parties  shall  enjoy  in  the 
territories  of  the  other  entire  liberty  of  conscience,  and,  subject  to  the  laws 
and  regulations  in  force,  shall  enjoy  the  right  of  private  and  public  exercise 
of  their  religion. 

Aeticle  4 

The  vessels  of  war  of  each  of  the  high  contracting  parties  may  enter, 
remain  and  make  repairs  in  those  ports  and  places  of  the  other  to  which  the 
vessels  of  war  of  other  nations  are  accorded  access;  they  shall  there  submit 
to  the  same  regulations  and  enjoy  the  same  honours,  advantages,  privileges 
and  exemptions  as  are  now  or  may  hereafter  be  conceded  to  the  vessels  of 
war  of  any  other  nation. 

Aeticle  5 

From  the  date  of  the  exchange  of  ratifications  of  the  present  treaty  and  of 
the  Treaty  of  Commerce  and  Navigation  between  the  United  Kingdom  and 
Siam,  concluded  at  London  on  the  14th  July,  1925,^  the  following  treaties, 
conventions  and  agreements  between  the  two  high  contracting  parties  shall 
cease  to  be  binding: 

The  treaty  signed  on  the  20th  June,  1826,  together  with  the  additional 
articles  thereto  ratified  on  the  17th  January,  1827. 

The  Treaty  of  Friendship  and  Commerce  signed  at  Bangkok  on  the  18th 
April,  1855,  together  with  the  agreement  supplementary  thereto,  signed 
at  Bangkok  on  the  13th  May,  1856. 

The  Agreement  for  Regulating  the  Traffic  in  Spirituous  Liquors,  signed  at 
London  on  the  6th  April,  1883. 

The  Treaty  for  the  Prevention  of  Crime  and  the  Promotion  of  Commerce, 
signed  at  Bangkok  on  the  3rd  September,  1883,  together  with  the 
exchange  of  notes  in  1896  extending  the  operation  of  that  treaty  in  Siam. 

The  treaty  concerning  certain  boundaries  and  the  jurisdiction  of  Siamese 
courts,  signed  at  Bangkok  on  the  10th  March,  1909,  together  with 
annexes  thereto. 

Provided,  however,  that  Articles  1,  2,  3  and  4,  and  Annexes  I  and  III  of 
the  treaty  signed  at  Bangkok  on  the  10th  March,  1909,  together  with  all 
provisions  of  any  treaty  in  force  at  the  time  of  the  signature  of  the 


2  Printed  infra,  p.  43. 


40 


present  treaty,  which  fix  or  delimit  the  boundary  between  Siam  and 
British  possessions  or  protectorates,  shall  remain  in  force. 

Article  6 

The  provisions  of  the  agreement  on  the  registration  of  British  subjects  in 
Siam,  signed  at  Bangkok  on  the  29th  November,  1899,  as  extended  in  ac¬ 
cordance  with  the  note  dated  the  3rd  October,  1910,  from  His  Royal  High¬ 
ness  the  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs  of  Siam  to  His  Britannic  Majesty’s 
Minister  at  Bangkok,  remain  in  force  and  shall  be  applicable  for  the  purposes 
of  the  present  treaty  and  of  the  commercial  treaty  signed  this  day,  except  in 
so  far  as  Articles  4  and  5  of  the  said  agreement  are  inconsistent  with  the 
terms  of  the  treaties  signed  this  day  or  of  the  jurisdiction  protocol  attached 
to  the  present  treaty. 

The  provisions  of  the  said  agreement  relating  to  persons  of  Asiatic  descent 
born  within  Flis  Majesty’s  dominions  and  to  their  children  born  in  Siam  shall 
respectively  extend  to  persons  to  whom  the  said  agreement  does  not  apply 
and  who  enjoy  the  protection  of  His  Britannic  Majesty  by  virtue  of  being 
citizens  of  or  born  in  British  protectorates,  British-protected  States,  or 
territories  in  respect  of  which  a  mandate  on  behalf  of  the  League  of  Nations 
has  been  accepted  by  His  Britannic  Majesty,  and  to  the  children  of  such 
persons. 

Article  7 

The  provisions  of  the  present  treaty  which  apply  to  subjects  of  the  high 
contracting  parties  shall  also  be  applicable  to  limited  liability  and  other 
companies,  partnerships  and  associations  duly  constituted  in  accordance 
wdth  the  laws  of  such  high  contracting  parties. 

Article  8 

The  provisions  of  the  present  treaty  which  apply  to  British  subjects  shall 
also  be  deemed  to  apply  to  all  persons  who  both  enjoy  the  protection  of  His 
Britannic  Majesty  and  are  entitled  to  registration  in  Siam  in  accordance  with 
Article  6  of  the  present  treaty. 

Article  9 

The  stipulations  of  Articles  2,  3  and  4  of  the  present  treaty  shall  not  be 
applicable  to  India  or  to  any  of  His  Britannic  Majesty’s  self-governing 
dominions,  colonies,  possessions  or  protectorates,  unless  notice  is  given  by 
His  Britannic  Majesty’s  representative  at  Bangkok,  of  the  desire  of  His 
Britannic  Majesty  that  the  said  stipulations  shall  apply  to  any  such  territory. 

Article  10 

The  terms  of  the  preceding  article  relating  to  India  and  to  His  Britannic 
Majesty’s  self-governing  dominions,  colonies,  possessions  and  protectorates 
shall  apply  also  to  any  territory  in  respect  of  which  a  mandate  on  behalf  of 
the  League  of  Nations  has  been  accepted  by  His  Britannic  Majesty. 


41 


Article  11 

The  present  treaty  shall  come  into  effect  on  the  date  of  the  exchange  of 
ratifications,  and  shall  remain  in  force  for  ten  years  from  that  date. 

In  case  neither  of  the  high  contracting  parties  shall  have  given  notice  to 
the  other  twelve  months  before  the  expiration  of  the  said  period  of  ten  years 
of  its  intention  to  terminate  the  present  treaty,  it  shall  remain  in  force  until 
the  expiration  of  one  year  from  the  date  on  which  either  of  the  high  con¬ 
tracting  parties  shall  have  denounced  it. 

It  is  clearly  understood,  however,  that  such  denunciation  shall  not  have 
the  effect  of  reviving  any  of  the  treaties,  conventions,  arrangements  or  agree¬ 
ments  abrogated  by  former  treaties  or  agreements  or  by  Article  5  hereof. 

As  regards  India  or  any  of  His  Britannic  Majesty’s  self-governing  domin¬ 
ions,  colonies,  possessions  or  protectorates,  or  any  territory  in  respect  of 
which  a  mandate  on  behalf  of  the  League  of  Nations  has  been  accepted  by 
His  Britannic  Majesty,  to  which  the  stipulations  of  Articles  2,  3  and  4  of  the 
present  treaty  shall  have  been  made  applicable  under  Articles  9  or  10,  either 
of  the  high  contracting  parties  shall  have  the  right  to  terminate  it  separately 
on  giving  twelve  months’  notice  to  that  effect.  Such  notice,  however,  can¬ 
not  be  given  so  as  to  take  effect  before  the  termination  of  the  period  of  ten 
years  mentioned  in  the  first  paragraph  of  this  article  except  in  the  case  of  His 
Britannic  Majesty’s  self-governing  dominions  (including  territories  admin¬ 
istered  by  them  under  mandate)  and  the  colony  of  Southern  Rhodesia,  in 
respect  of  which  notice  of  termination  may  be  given  by  either  high  con¬ 
tracting  party  at  any  time. 

Article  12 

This  treaty  shall  be  ratified  and  the  ratifications  thereof  shall  be  exchanged 
at  London  as  soon  as  possible. 

In  witness  whereof  the  respective  plenipotentiaries  have  signed  the  present 
treaty,  and  have  thereunto  affixed  their  seals. 

Done  in  duplicate  in  the  English  language,  at  London,  the  14th  day  of 
July,  in  the  nineteen  hundred  and  twenty-fifth  year  of  the  Christian  era, 
corresponding  to  the  14th  day  of  the  4th  month  in  the  2468th  year  of  the 
Buddhist  era. 

(l.s.)  Austen  Chamberlain, 
(l.s.)  Prabha  Karavongs. 


Annex 

PROTOCOL  CONCERNING  JURISDICTION  APPLICABLE  IN  THE  KINGDOM  OF  SIAM 
TO  BRITISH  SUBJECTS  AND  OTHERS  ENTITLED  TO  BRITISH  PROTECTION 

At  the  moment  of  proceeding  this  day  to  the  signature  of  the  general 
treaty  between  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Siam  and  His  Britannic  Majesty, 
the  plenipotentiaries  of  the  two  high  contracting  parties  have  agreed  as 
follows: 


42 


Article  1 

The  system  of  jurisdiction  heretofore  established  in  Siam  for  British 
subjects  and  the  privileges,  exemptions  and  immunities  now  enjoyed  by 
British  subjects  in  Siam  as  a  part  of,  or  appurtenant  to  the  said  system,  shall 
absolutely  cease  and  determine  on  the  date  of  the  exchange  of  ratifications 
of  the  above-mentioned  treaty,  and  thereafter  all  British  subjects,  corpora¬ 
tions,  companies  and  associations,  and  all  British-protected  persons  in  Siam 
shall  be  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Siamese  courts. 

Article  2 

Until  the  promulgation  and  putting  into  force  of  all  the  Siamese  codes, 
namely,  the  Penal  Code,  the  Civil  and  Commercial  Code,  the  Codes  of 
Procedure  and  the  Law  for  Organisation  of  Courts,  and  for  a  period  of  five 
years  thereafter,  but  no  longer.  His  Britannic  Majesty,  through  his  diplo¬ 
matic  and  consular  officials  in  Siam,  whenever  in  his  discretion  he  deems  it 
proper  so  to  do  in  the  interest  of  justice,  may,  by  means  of  a  written  requisi¬ 
tion  addressed  to  the  judge  or  judges  of  the  court  in  which  such  case  is 
pending,  evoke  any  case  pending  in  any  Siamese  court,  except  the  Supreme 
or  Dika  Court,  in  which  a  British  subject,  corporation,  company  or  associa¬ 
tion,  or  a  British-protected  person  is  defendant  or  accused. 

Such  case  shall  then  be  transferred  to  the  said  diplomatic  or  consular 
official  for  adjudication,  and  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Siamese  courts  over 
such  case  shall  thereupon  cease.  Any  case  so  evoked  shall  be  disposed  of  by 
the  said  diplomatic  or  consular  official  in  accordance  with  English  law, 
except  that  as  to  all  matters  coming  within  the  scope  of  codes  or  laws  of  the 
Kingdom  of  Siam  regularly  promulgated  and  in  force,  the  texts  of  which  have 
been  communicated  to  the  British  Legation  in  Bangkok,  the  rights  and 
liabilities  of  the  parties  shall  be  determined  by  Siamese  law. 

For  the  purpose  of  trying  such  cases  and  of  executing  any  judgments 
which  may  be  rendered  therein,  the  jurisdiction  of  the  said  diplomatic  and 
consular  officials  in  Siam  is  continued. 

Should  His  Britannic  Majesty  perceive,  within  a  reasonable  time  after  the 
promulgation  thereof,  any  objection  to  the  said  codes,  namely,  the  Penal 
Code,  the  Civil  and  Commercial  Code,  the  Codes  of  Procedure  and  the  Law 
for  Organisation  of  Courts,  the  Siamese  Government  will  endeavour  to  take 
such  objections  into  account. 

Article  3 

Appeals  from  judgments  of  courts  of  first  instance  in  cases  to  which  British 
subjects,  corporations,  companies  or  associations,  or  British-protected  per¬ 
sons  may  be  parties  shall  be  adjudged  by  the  Court  of  Appeal  at  Bangkok. 

An  appeal  on  a  question  of  law  shall  lie  from  the  Court  of  Appeal  at 
Bangkok  to  the  Supreme  or  Dika  Court. 

A  British  subject,  corporation,  company  or  association,  or  British-pro¬ 
tected  person,  who  is  defendant  or  accused  in  any  case  arising  in  the  prov- 


43 


inces,  may  apply  for  a  change  of  venue,  and  should  the  court  consider  such 
change  desirable  the  trial  shall  take  place  either  at  Bangkok  or  before  the 
judge  in  whose  court  the  case  would  be  tried  at  Bangkok. 

The  provisions  of  this  article  shall  remain  in  force  so  long  as  the  right  of 
evocation  continues  to  exist  in  accordance  with  Article  2. 

Article  4 

In  order  to  prevent  difficulties  which  may  arise  from  the  transfer  of  juris¬ 
diction  contemplated  by  the  present  protocol,  it  is  agreed  as  follows: 

(a)  All  cases  instituted  subsequently  to  the  date  of  the  exchange  of  rati¬ 

fications  of  the  above-mentioned  treaty  shall  be  entered  and  decided 
in  the  Siamese  courts,  whether  the  cause  of  action  arose  before  or 
after  the  date  of  said  exchange  of  ratifications. 

(b)  All  cases  pending  before  the  diplomatic  and  consular  officials  of  His 

Britannic  Majesty  in  Siam  on  the  said  date  shall  take  their  usual 
course  before  such  officials  until  such  cases  have  been  finally  disposed 
of,  and  the  jurisdiction  of  the  said  diplomatic  and  consular  officials 
shall  remain  in  full  force  for  this  purpose. 

In  connection  with  any  case  coming  before  the  said  diplomatic  or  consular 
officials  under  clause  (h)  of  this  article,  or  which  may  be  evoked  by  the  said 
officials  under  Article  2,  the  Siamese  authorities  shall  upon  request  by  such 
diplomatic  or  consular  officials  lend  their  assistance  in  all  matters  pertaining 
to  the  case. 

In  witness  whereof  the  undersigned  plenipotentiaries  have  signed  the 
present  protocol  and  affixed  thereto  their  seals. 

(l.s.)  Austen  Chamberlain, 
(l.s.)  Prabha  Karavongs. 

TREATY  OF  COMMERCE  AND  NAVIGATION  BETWEEN  THE  UNITED  KINGDOM 

AND  SIAM  ^ 

Signed  at  Londofi,  July  14,  1925;  ratifications  exchanged  at  London,  March  30, 

1926 

His  Majesty  the  King  of  the  United  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland 
and  of  the  British  Dominions  beyond  the  Seas,  Emperor  of  India,  and  His 
Majesty  the  King  of  Siam,  being  desirous  of  facilitating  and  extending  the 
commercial  relations  already  existing  between  their  respective  countries, 
have  determined  to  conclude  a  treaty  of  commerce  and  navigation  with  this 
object,  and  have  appointed  as  their  plenipotentiaries,  that  is  to  say: 

His  Majesty  the  King  of  the  United  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland 
and  of  the  British  Dominions  beyond  the  Seas,  Emperor  of  India:  The  Right 
Honourable  Joseph  Austen  Chamberlain,  a  Member  of  Parliament,  His 
Majesty’s  Principal  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs;  and 

His  Majesty  the  King  of  Siam:  Phya  Prabha  Karawongse,  His  Envoy 

1  British  Treaty  Series  No.  8  (1926).  Cir.d.  2643. 


44 


Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  at  the  Court  of  His  Britannic 
Majesty; 

Who,  after  having  communicated  to  each  other  their  respective  full  powers, 
found  in  good  and  due  form,  have  agreed  upon  the  following  articles: 

Article  1 

There  shall  be  between  the  territories  of  the  two  contracting  parties 
reciprocal  freedom  of  commerce  and  navigation. 

The  subjects  of  each  of  the  two  contracting  parties,  upon  conforming 
themselves  to  the  laws  and  regulations  applicable  generally  to  native  sub¬ 
jects,  shall  have  liberty  freely  and  securely  to  come,  with  their  ships  and 
cargoes,  to  all  places  and  ports  in  the  territories  of  the  other  to  which  subjects 
of  that  contracting  party  are,  or  may  be,  permitted  to  come,  and  shall  enjoy 
the  same  rights,  privileges,  liberties,  favours,  immunities  and  exemptions  in 
matters  of  commerce  and  navigation  as  are,  or  may  be,  enjoyed  by  subjects 
of  that  contracting  party. 

Article  2 

The  subjects  of  either  of  the  two  contracting  parties  shall  be  entitled  to 
enter,  travel  and  reside  in  the  territories  of  the  other  so  long  as  they  satisfy 
and  observe  the  conditions  and  regulations  applicable  to  the  entry,  travelling 
and  residence  of  all  foreigners. 

Article  3 

The  dwellings,  warehouses,  factories  and  shops  and  all  other  property  of 
the  subjects  of  each  of  the  two  contracting  parties  in  the  territories  of  the 
other,  and  all  premises  appertaining  thereto,  used  for  purposes  of  residence 
or  commerce,  shall  be  respected.  Except  under  the  conditions  and  with  the 
forms  prescribed  by  the  laws,  ordinances  and  regulations  for  native  subjects 
or  for  the  subjects  or  citizens  of  the  most  favoured  foreign  country,  no 
domiciliary  visit  shall  be  instituted  and  no  search  of  any  such  buildings  or 
premises  be  carried  out,  nor  shall  books,  papers  or  accounts  be  examined  or 
inspected. 

Article  4 

In  so  far  as  taxes,  rates,  customs  duties,  imposts,  fees  which  are  substan¬ 
tially  taxes  and  any  other  similar  charges  are  concerned,  the  subjects  of  each 
of  the  two  contracting  parties  in  the  territories  of  the  other  shall  enjoy,  in 
respect  of  their  persons,  their  property,  rights  and  interests,  and  in  respect 
of  their  commerce,  industry,  profession,  occupation  or  any  other  matter,  in 
every  way  the  same  treatment  as  the  subjects  of  that  party  or  the  subjects 
or  citizens  of  the  most  favoured  foreign  country. 

Article  5 

With  respect  to  all  forestry  undertakings,  and  to  searches  for  minerals 
(including  oil)  and  mining  operations  (including  oil  wells),  in  Siam,  British 


45 


subjects  and  companies,  partnerships  and  associations  established  in  His 
Britannic  Majesty’s  territories  shall  be  entitled  to  treatment  not  less  favour¬ 
able  than  that  which  is,  or  may  hereafter  be,  accorded  to  Siamese  subjects  or 
the  subjects  or  citizens  of  any  other  foreign  country. 

Article  6 

The  two  contracting  parties  agree  that  in  all  matters  relating  to  commer¬ 
cial  or  industrial  pursuits  or  the  exercise  of  professions  or  occupations,  any 
privilege,  favour  or  immunity  which  either  of  the  two  contracting  parties  has 
actually  granted,  or  may  hereafter  grant,  to  the  subjects  or  citizens  of  any 
other  foreign  country  shall  be  extended,  simultaneously  and  unconditionally, 
without  request  and  without  compensation,  to  the  subjects  of  the  other,  it 
being  their  intention  that  the  pursuit  of  commerce  and  industry  in  the 
territories  of  each  of  the  two  contracting  parties  shall  be  placed  in  all  respects 
on  the  footing  of  the  most  favoured  nation. 

Article  7 

The  subjects  of  each  of  the  two  contracting  parties  in  the  territories  of  the 
other  shall  be  at  full  liberty  to  acquire  and  possess  every  description  of 
property,  movable  and  immovable,  which  the  laws  of  the  other  contracting 
party  permit,  or  shall  permit,  the  subjects  or  citizens  of  any  other  foreign 
country  to  acquire  and  possess.  They  may  dispose  of  the  same  by  sale, 
exchange,  gift,  marriage,  testament  or  in  any  other  manner,  or  acquire  the 
same  by  inheritance,  under  the  same  conditions  as  are,  or  shall  be,  established 
with  regard  to  subjects  of  the  other  contracting  party,  or  the  subjects  or 
citizens  of  the  most  favoured  foreign  country. 

They  shall  not  be  subjected  in  any  of  the  cases  mentioned  in  the  foregoing 
paragraph  to  any  taxes,  imposts  or  charges  of  whatever  denomination  other 
or  higher  than  those  which  are,  or  shall  be,  applicable  to  native  subjects,  or 
to  the  subjects  or  citizens  of  the  most  favoured  foreign  country. 

They  shall  also  be  permitted  to  export  their  property  and  their  goods  in 
general,  and  shall  not  be  subjected  in  these  matters  to  any  other  restrictions 
or  to  any  other  or  higher  duties  than  those  to  which  native  subjects  or  the 
subjects  or  citizens  of  any  other  foreign  country  would  be  liable  in  similar 
circumstances. 

In  all  these  matters  British  subjects  shall  continue  to  enjoy  in  Siam  the 
same  rights  and,  subject  to  the  provisions  of  Articles  4  and  8  of  the  present 
treaty,  be  subject  to  the  same  obligations  as  those  which  were  provided  for 
by  Article  6  of  the  Anglo-Siamese  treaty  signed  at  Bangkok  on  the  10th 
March,  1909. 

Article  8 

In  all  that  relates  to  compulsory  military  service  and  to  the  exercise  of 
compulsory  judicial,  administrative  and  municipal  functions,  the  subjects  of 
one  of  the  two  contracting  parties  shall  not  be  accorded  in  the  territories 


46 


of  the  other  less  favourable  treatment  than  that  which  is,  or  may  be,  accorded 
to  subjects  or  citizens  of  the  most  favoured  foreign  country. 

British  subjects  in  Siamese  territory  shall  be  exempted  from  all  compulsory 
military  service  whatsoever,  whether  in  the  army,  navy,  air  force,  national 
guard  or  militia.  They  shall  similarly  be  exempted  from  all  forms  of  com¬ 
pulsory  manual  labour  (except  in  cases  of  sudden  and  unexpected  occurrences 
involving  great  public  danger,  or  where  Siamese  law  gives  the  option  of 
performing  such  labour  in  lieu  of  the  payment  of  taxes)  and  from  the  exercise 
of  all  compulsory  judicial,  administrative  and  municipal  functions  whatever, 
as  well  as  from  all  contributions,  whether  in  money  or  in  kind,  imposed  as  an 
equivalent  for  such  personal  service,  and  finally  from  all  forced  loans,  whether 
in  money  or  in  kind,  and  from  ail  military  exactions  or  contributions. 

It  is,  however,  understood  that  British  subjects  shall  continue  as  hereto¬ 
fore  to  be  liable  to  capitation  tax. 

Article  9 

Articles  produced  or  manufactured  in  the  territories  of  one  of  the  two 
contracting  parties,  imported  into  the  territories  of  the  other,  from  whatever 
place  arriving,  shall  not  be  subjected  to  other  or  higher  duties  or  charges 
than  those  paid  on  the  like  articles  produced  or  manufactured  in  any  other 
foreign  country.  Nor  shall  any  prohibition  or  restriction  be  maintained  or 
imposed  on  the  importation  of  any  article,  produced  or  manufactured  in  the 
territories  of  either  of  the  two  contracting  parties,  into  the  territories  of  the 
other,  from  whatever  place  arriving,  which  shall  not  equally  extend  to 
the  importation  of  the  like  articles  produced  or  manufactured  in  any  other 
foreign  country. 

The  only  exceptions  to  this  general  rule  shall  be  in  the  case  of  the  sanitary 
or  other  prohibitions  occasioned  by  the  necessity  of  securing  the  safety  of 
persons,  or  the  protection  of  animals  or  plants  against  diseases  or  pests,  and 
of  the  measures  applicable  in  the  territories  of  either  of  the  two  contracting 
parties  with  respect  to  articles  enjoying  a  direct  or  indirect  bounty  in  the 
territories  of  the  other  contracting  party. 

Article  10 

4 

The  following  articles  manufactured  in  any  of  His  Britannic  Majesty’s 
territories  to  which  this  treaty  applies,  viz.,  cotton  yarns,  threads,  fabrics 
and  aU  other  manufactures  of  cotton,  iron  and  steel  and  manufactures 
thereof,  and  machinery  and  parts  thereof,  shall  not,  on  importation  into 
Siam,  be  subjected  to  any  customs  duty  in  excess  of  5  per  cent,  ad  valorem 
during  the  first  ten  years  after  this  treaty  has  come  into  force. 

It  is  understood  that  the  articles  to  which  this  provision  applies  shall  be 
those  included  in  the  groups  III  (i).  III  (c)  and  III  (g),  in  Volume  I  of  the 
Annual  Statement  of  the  Trade  of  the  United  Kingdom  for  1923  compiled 
in  the  Statistical  Office  of  the  British  Customs  and  Excise  Department. 

It  is  further  understood  that  in  regard  to  particular  classes  of  the  above- 


47 


mentioned  articles  customs  duties  may  be  imposed  on  a  specific  basis,  pro¬ 
vided  that  such  specific  duties  do  not  in  any  case  exceed  in  amount  the 
equivalent  of  5  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

Article  11 

Drawback  of  the  full  amount  of  duty  shall  be  allowed  upon  the  exportation 
from  Siam  of  all  goods  previously  imported  into  Siam  from  His  Britannic 
Majesty’s  territories  which,  though  landed,  have  not  gone  into  consumption 
in  Siam,  or  been  subjected  there  to  any  process. 

Nevertheless,  His  Britannic  Majesty  will  not  claim  the  advantages  of  this 
article  in  so  far  as  exports  of  filled  gunny  bags  are  concerned,  so  long  as  the 
duty  leviable  on  the  importation  of  gunny  bags  into  Siam  from  the  territories 
of  His  Britannic  Majesty  shall  not  exceed  1  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

Article  12 

As  soon  as  possible  and  in  any  case  within  six  months  of  the  coming  into 
force  of  this  treaty  a  supplementary  convention  shall  be  concluded  between 
the  two  contracting  parties  which  shall  determine  all  matters  incidental  to 
the  application  of  the  duties  specified  in  Articles  10  and  11  of  this  treaty. 

Article  13 

Any  prohibitions  or  restrictions,  whether  by  the  creation  or  maintenance 
of  a  monopoly  or  otherwise,  which  are,  or  may  hereafter  be,  imposed  in  Siam 
on  the  importation,  purchase  and  sale  of  arms  and  ammunition  shall  not  be 
so  framed  or  administered  as  to  prevent  British  subjects,  firms  and  com¬ 
panies  from  obtaining  adequate  supplies  of  industrial  explosives  for  use  in 
their  industries,  it  being  understood  that  nothing  in  this  article  shall  preclude 
the  Siamese  Government  from  enforcing  such  reasonable  regulations  as 
may  be  required  in  the  interests  of  public  safety. 

Article  14 

Each  of  the  two  contracting  parties  undertakes  to  inform  the  other  of  its 
intention  to  establish  any  monopoly  with  a  view  to  securing  that  the 
monopoly  shall  interfere  as  little  as  possible  with  the  trade  between  the 
territories  of  the  two  contracting  parties. 

In  the  event  of  the  establishment  of  any  such  monopoly,  the  question  of 
the  payment  of  compensation,  and  the  amount,  if  any,  of  such  compensation 
which  shall  be  paid  to  the  subjects  or  companies,  partnerships  or  associations 
of  one  of  the  two  contracting  parties  established  in  the  territories  of  the  other, 
shall  be  settled  by  mutual  agreement  between  the  two  contracting  parties  or 
by  arbitration. 

Nothing  in  this  article  shall  require  the  payment  of  compensation  in  the 
event  of  the  establishment  of  a  monopoly  relating  to  opium  or  other  drugs 
included  now  or  hereafter  within  the  scope  of  the  International  Opium  Agree¬ 
ment  and  of  the  International  Opium  Convention  signed  at  Geneva  on  the 
11th  February,  1925,  and  the  19th  February,  1925,  respectively. 


48 


Article  15 

Articles  produced  or  manufactured  in  the  territories  of  either  of  the  two 
contracting  parties,  exported  to  the  territories  of  the  other,  shall  not  be 
subjected  to  other  or  higher  duties  or  charges  than  those  paid  on  the  like 
articles  exported  to  any  other  foreign  country.  Nor  shall  any  prohibition  or 
restriction  be  imposed  on  the  exportation  of  any  article  from  the  territories  of 
either  of  the  two  contracting  parties  to  the  territories  of  the  other  which 
shall  not  equally  extend  to  the  exportation  of  the  like  articles  to  any  other 
foreign  country. 

Nothing  in  this  article  shall  apply  to  any  prohibition  or  restriction  imposed 
on  the  exportation  of  opium  or  other  dangerous  drugs  included  within  the 
scope  of  the  International  Opium  Convention  signed  at  Geneva  on  the  19th 
February,  1925. 

Article  16 

Articles  exported  from  Siam  to  His  Britannic  Majesty’s  territories  shall 
not  from  the  time  of  production  to  the  date  of  shipment  pay  more  than  one 
impost,  whether  this  be  levied  as  an  inland  or  transit  duty  or  paid  on 
exportation. 

Where  the  Siamese  Government  has  granted  concessions  which  provide  for 
payments  to  the  government  in  respect  of  the  product  to  which  the  concession 
relates  on  the  understanding  that  an  inland  duty  formerly  levied  should  be 
withdrawn  the  payments  in  question  shall  be  held  to  include  an  impost  for 
the  purpose  of  this  article. 

Article  17 

Having  regard  to  the  provisions  of  Article  7  of  the  International  Conven¬ 
tion  relating  to  the  Simplification  of  Customs  Formalities  signed  at  Geneva 
on  the  3rd  November,  1923,  the  two  contracting  parties  agree  to  take  the 
most  appropriate  measures  by  their  national  legislation  and  administration 
both  to  prevent  the  arbitrary  or  unjust  application  of  their  laws  and  regula¬ 
tions  with  regard  to  customs  and  other  similar  matters,  and  to  ensure  redress 
by  administrative,  judicial  or  arbitral  procedure  for  those  who  have  been 
prejudiced  by  such  abuses. 

Article  18 

Internal  duties  levied  within  the  territories  of  either  of  the  two  contracting 
parties  for  the  benefit  of  the  State  or  local  authorities  on  goods,  the  produce 
or  manufacture  of  the  territories  of  the  other  party,  shall  not  be  other  or 
greater  than  the  duties  levied  in  similar  circumstances  on  the  like  goods  of 
national  origin,  provided  that  in  no  case  shall  such  duties  be  more  burden¬ 
some  than  the  duties  levied  in  similar  circumstances  on  the  like  goods  of  any 
other  foreign  country. 

Article  19 

The  two  contracting  parties  agree,  with  respect  to  the  treatment  of  com¬ 
mercial  travellers  and  sam.ples,  to  accord  to  each  other  all  those  facilities 


49 


and  privileges  which  are  set  out  in  the  International  Convention  relating 
to  the  Simplification  of  Customs  Formalities  signed  at  Geneva  on  the  3rd 
November,  1923. 

Any  further  facilities  or  privileges  accorded  by  either  party  to  any  other 
foreign  country  in  respect  of  commercial  travellers  or  samples  shall  be 
extended  unconditionally  to  the  other  party. 

Article  20 

Limited  liability  and  other  companies,  partnerships  and  associations 
formed  for  the  purpose  of  commerce,  insurance,  finance,  industry,  transport 
or  any  other  business,  and  established  in  the  territories  of  either  party,  shall, 
provided  that  they  have  been  duly  constituted  in  accordance  with  the  laws 
in  force  in  such  territories,  be  entitled,  in  the  territories  of  the  other,  to  exer¬ 
cise  their  rights  and  appear  in  the  courts  either  as  plaintiffs  or  defendants, 
subject  to  the  laws  of  such  other  party. 

Each  of  the  two  contracting  parties  undertakes  to  place  no  obstacle  in  the 
way  of  such  companies,  partnerships  and  associations  which  may  desire  to 
carry  on  in  its  territories,  whether  through  the  establishment  of  branches  or 
otherwise,  any  description  of  business  which  the  companies,  partnerships  and 
associations  of  any  other  foreign  country  are,  or  may  be,  permitted  to  carry 
on. 

Limited  liability  and  other  companies,  partnerships  and  associations  of 
either  party  shall  enjoy  in  the  territories  of  the  other  treatment  in  regard  to 
taxation  no  less  favourable  than  that  accorded  to  the  limited  liability  and 
other  companies,  partnerships  and  associations  of  that  party. 

In  no  case  shall  the  treatment  accorded  by  either  of  the  two  contracting 
parties  to  companies,  partnerships  and  associations  of  the  other  be  less 
favourable  in  respect  of  any  matter  whatever  than  that  accorded  to  com¬ 
panies,  partnerships  and  associations  of  the  most  favoured  foreign  country. 

Article  21 

Each  of  the  two  contracting  parties  shall  permit  the  importation  or  ex¬ 
portation  of  all  merchandise  which  may  be  legally  imported  or  exported, 
and  also  the  carriage  of  passengers  from  or  to  their  respective  territories, 
upon  the  vessels  of  the  other,  and  such  vessels,  their  cargoes  and  passengers 
shall  enjoy  the  same  privileges  as,  and  shall  not  be  subject  to  any  other  or 
higher  duties,  charges  or  restrictions  than  national  vessels  and  their  cargoes 
and  passengers,  or  the  vessels  of  any  other  foreign  country  and  their  cargoes 
and  passengers. 

Article  22 

In  all  that  regards  the  stationing,  loading  and  unloading  of  vessels  in  the 
ports,  docks,  roadsteads  and  harbours  of  the  territories  of  the  two  contracting 
parties,  no  privilege  or  facility  shall  be  granted  by  either  party  to  vessels  of 
any  other  foreign  country  or  to  national  vessels  which  is  not  equally  granted 


50 


to  vessels  of  the  other  party  from  whatsoever  place  they  may  arrive  and 
whatever  may  be  their  place  of  destination. 

Article  23 

In  regard  to  duties  of  tonnage,  harbour,  pilotage,  lighthouse,  quarantine 
or  other  analogous  duties  or  charges  of  whatever  denomination  levied  in  the 
name  or  for  the  profit  of  the  government,  public  functionaries,  private  in¬ 
dividuals,  corporations  or  establishments  of  any  kind,  the  vessels  of  each  of 
the  two  contracting  parties  shall  enjoy  in  the  ports  of  the  territories  of  the 
other  treatment  at  least  as  favourable  as  that  accorded  to  national  vessels 
or  the  vessels  of  any  other  foreign  country. 

Article  24 

The  provisions  of  this  treaty  relating  to  the  mutual  concession  of  national 
treatment  in  matters  of  navigation  do  not  apply  to  the  coasting  trade.  In 
respect  of  the  coasting  trade,  however,  as  also  in  respect  of  all  other  matters 
of  navigation,  the  subjects  and  vessels  of  each  of  the  contracting  parties 
shall  enjoy  most-favoured-nation  treatment  in  the  territories  of  the  other, 
ill  addition  to  any  other  advantages  that  may  be  accorded  by  this  treaty. 

The  vessels  of  either  contracting  party  may,  nevertheless,  proceed  from 
one  port  to  another  port  in  the  territories  of  the  other  contracting  party, 
either  for  the  purpose  of  landing  the  whole  or  part  of  their  cargoes  or  passen¬ 
gers  brought  from  abroad,  or  of  taking  on  board  the  whole  or  part  of  their 
cargoes  or  passengers  for  a  foreign  destination. 

It  is  also  understood  that  in  the  event  of  the  coasting  trade  of  either  party 
being  exclusively  reserved  to  national  vessels,  the  vessels  of  the  other  party, 
if  engaged  in  trade  to  or  from  places  not  within  the  limits  of  the  coasting 
trade  so  reserved,  shall  not  be  prohibited  from  the  carriage  between  two 
ports  of  the  territories  of  the  former  party  of  passengers  holding  through 
tickets  or  merchandise  consigned  on  through  bills  of  lading  to  or  from  places 
not  within  the  above-mentioned  limits,  and  while  engaged  in  such  carriage 
these  vessels  and  their  passengers  and  cargoes  shall  enjoy  the  full  privileges 
of  this  treaty. 

Article  25 

Any  vessels  of  either  of  the  two  contracting  parties  which  may  be  com¬ 
pelled  by  stress  of  weather  or  by  accident  to  take  shelter  in  a  port  of  the 
territories  of  the  other  shall  be  at  liberty  to  refit  therein,  to  procure  all  neces¬ 
sary  stores  and  to  put  to  sea  again,  without  paying  any  dues  other  than  such 
as  would  be  payable  in  a  similar  case  by  a  national  vessel.  In  case,  however, 
the  master  of  a  merchant  vessel  should  be  under  the  necessity  of  disposing  of 
a  part  of  his  merchandise  in  order  to  defray  his  expenses,  he  shall  be  bound  to 
conform  to  the  regulations  and  tariffs  of  the  place  to  which  he  may  have 
come. 

If  any  vessel  of  one  of  the  two  contracting  parties  shall  run  aground  or  be 
wrecked  upon  the  coasts  of  the  territories  of  the  other,  such  vessel  and  all 


51 


parts  thereof  and  all  furniture  and  appurtenances  belonging  thereto,  and  all 
goods  and  merchandise  saved  therefrom,  including  any  which  may  have  been 
cast  into  the  sea,  or  the  proceeds  thereof,  if  sold,  as  well  as  all  papers  found  on 
board  such  stranded  or  wrecked  vessel,  shall  be  given  up  to  the  owners  of 
such  vessel,  goods,  merchandise,  &c.,  or  to  their  agents,  when  claimed  by 
them.  If  there  are  no  such  owners  or  agents  on  the  spot,  then  the  vessel, 
goods,  merchandise,  &c.,  referred  to  shall,  in  so  far  as  they  are  the  property  of 
a  subject  of  the  second  contracting  party,  be  delivered  to  the  consular  officer 
of  that  contracting  party  in  whose  district  the  wreck  or  stranding  may  have 
taken  place,  upon  being  claimed  by  him  within  the  period  fixed  by  the  laws  of 
that  contracting  party,  and  such  consular  officer,  owners  or  agents  shall  pay 
only  the  expenses  incurred  in  the  preservation  of  the  property,  together  with 
the  salvage  or  other  expenses  which  would  have  been  payable  in  the  like  case 
of  a  wreck  or  stranding  of  a  national  vessel. 

The  two  contracting  parties  agree,  however,  that  merchandise  saved  shall 
not  be  subjected  to  the  payment  of  any  customs  duty  unless  cleared  for 
internal  consumption. 

In  the  case  of  a  vessel  being  driven  in  by  stress  of  weather,  run  aground  or 
wrecked,  the  respective  consular  officer  shall,  if  the  owner  or  master  or  other 
agent  of  the  owner  is  not  present,  or  is  present  and  requires  it,  be  authorised 
to  interpose  in  order  to  afford  the  necessary  assistance  to  his  fellow-country¬ 
men. 

Article  26 

All  vessels  which,  according  to  British  law,  are  deemed  to  be  British  ves¬ 
sels,  and  all  vessels  which,  according  to  Siamese  law,  are  deemed  to  be  Sia¬ 
mese  vessels,  shall,  for  the  purposes  of  this  treaty,  be  deemed  British  or 
Siamese  vessels  respectively. 

Article  27 

It  shall  be  free  to  each  of  the  two  contracting  parties  to  appoint  consuls- 
general,  consuls,  vice-consuls  and  consular  agents  to  reside  in  the  towns  and 
ports  of  the  territories  of  the  other  to  which  such  representatives  of  any  other 
nation  may  be  admitted  by  the  respective  governments.  Such  consuls- 
general,  consuls,  vice-consuls  and  consular  agents,  however,  shall  not  enter 
upon  their  functions  until  after  they  shall  have  been  approved  and  admitted 
in  the  usual  form  by  the  government  to  which  they  are  sent. 

The  consular  officers  of  one  of  the  two  contracting  parties  shall  enjoy  in  the 
territories  of  the  other  the  same  official  rights,  privileges  and  exemptions  as 
are  or  may  be  accorded  to  similar  officers  of  any  other  foreign  country. 

Article  28 

In  the  case  of  the  death  of  a  subject  of  one  of  the  two  contracting  parties  in 
the  territories  of  the  other,  leaving  kin  but  without  leaving  at  the  place  of  his 
decease  any  person  entitled  by  the  laws  of  his  country  to  take  charge  of  and 
administer  the  estate,  the  competent  consular  officer  of  the  country  to  which 


52 


the  deceased  belonged  shall,  upon  fulfilment  of  the  necessary  formalities,  be 
empowered  to  take  custody  of  and  administer  the  estate  in  the  manner  and 
under  the  limitations  prescribed  by  the  law  of  the  country  in  which  the 
property  of  the  deceased  is  situated. 

It  is  understood  that  in  all  that  concerns  the  administration  of  the  estates 
of  deceased  persons,  any  right,  privilege,  favour  or  immunity  which  either 
contracting  party  has  actually  granted,  or  may  hereafter  grant,  to  the  con¬ 
sular  officers  of  any  other  foreign  country  shall  be  extended  immediately  and 
unconditionally  to  the  consular  officers  of  the  other  contracting  party. 

Article  29 

The  consular  officers  of  one  of  the  two  contracting  parties  residing  in  the 
territories  of  the  other  shall  receive  from  the  local  authorities  such  assistance 
as  can  by  law  be  given  to  them  for  the  recovery  of  deserters  from  the  vessels 
of  the  former  party.  Provided  that  this  stipulation  shall  not  apply  to  sub¬ 
jects  of  the  contracting  party  from  whose  local  authorities  assistance  is 
requested. 

Article  30 

The  subjects  of  each  of  the  two  contracting  parties  shall  have  in  the  terri¬ 
tories  of  the  other  the  same  rights  as  subjects  of  that  contracting  party  in 
regard  to  patents  for  inventions,  trade-marks,  trade  names,  designs  and 
copyright  in  literary  and  artistic  works,  upon  fulfilment  of  the  formalities 
prescribed  by  law. 

Article  31 

As  soon  as  possible  after  the  preponderating  proportion  of  the  imports  into 
Siam  is  obtained  from  countries  whose  subjects  or  citizens  shall  have  become 
subject  to  Siamese  law  and  jurisdiction  (even  though  still  enjoying  privileges 
under  the  right  of  evocation),  the  Siamese  Government  will  promulgate  and 
bring  into  operation  laws  for  the  proper  regulation  of  the  matters  dealt  with 
in  Article  30  and  will  also  take  the  necessary  measures  for  the  regulation  of 
merchandise  marks  by  which  imported  products  shall  be  protected  from 
competition  through  false  marks,  false  indications  of  origin,  the  short  reeling 
of  yarns,  and  the  false  lapping  of  piece-goods. 

Article  32 

It  is  hereby  understood  and  agreed  that  none  of  the  stipulations  of  the 
present  treaty  by  which  Siam  grants  most-favoured-nation  treatment  is  to  be 
interpreted  as  granting  rights,  powers,  privileges  or  immunities  arising  solely 
by  virtue  of  the  existence  of  rights  of  exemption  from  Siamese  jurisdiction, 
judicial,  administrative  or  fiscal,  possessed  by  other  foreign  countries. 

Article  33 

The  two  contracting  parties  agree  that  any  dispute  that  may  arise  between 
them  as  to  the  proper  interpretation  or  application  of  any  of  the  provisions  of 


53 


the  present  treaty  shall,  at  the  request  of  either  party,  be  referred  to  arbitra¬ 
tion,  and  both  parties  hereby  undertake  to  accept  as  binding  the  arbitral 
award. 

The  court  of  arbitration  to  which  disputes  shall  be  referred  shall  be  the 
Permanent  Court  of  International  Justice  at  The  Hague,  unless  in  any 
particular  case  the  two  contracting  parties  agree  otherwise. 

Article  34 

The  stipulations  of  the  present  treaty  shall  not  be  applicable  to  India  or  to 
any  of  His  Britannic  Majesty’s  self-governing  dominions,  colonies,  posses¬ 
sions  or  protectorates  unless  notice  is  given  by  His  Britannic  Majesty’s 
representative  at  Bangkok  of  the  desire  of  His  Britannic  Majesty  that  the 
said  stipulations  shall  apply  to  any  such  territory. 

Nevertheless,  goods  produced  or  manufactured  in  India  or  in  any  of  His 
Britannic  Majesty’s  self-governing  dominions,  colonies,  possessions  or  pro¬ 
tectorates  shall  enjoy  in  Siam  complete  and  unconditional  most-favoured¬ 
nation  treatment  so  long  as  goods  produced  or  manufactured  in  Siam  are 
accorded  in  India,  or  such  self-governing  dominion,  colony,  possession  or 
protectorate,  treatment  as  favourable  as  that  accorded  to  goods  produced  or 
manufactured  in  any  other  foreign  country. 

Article  35 

The  terms  of  the  preceding  article  relating  to  India  and  to  His  Britannic 
Majesty’s  self-governing  dominions,  colonies,  possessions  and  protectorates 
shall  apply  also  to  any  territory  in  respect  of  which  a  mandate  on  behalf  of 
the  League  of  Nations  has  been  accepted  by  His  Britannic  Majesty. 

Article  36 

The  provisions  of  the  present  treaty  which  apply  to  British  subjects  shall 
also  be  deemed  to  apply  to  all  persons  who  both  enjoy  the  protection  of  His 
Britannic  Majesty  and  are  entitled  to  registration  in  Siam  in  accordance 
with  Article  6  of  the  general  treaty  signed  this  day.^ 

Article  37 

The  present  treaty  shall  be  ratified  and  the  ratifications  shall  be  exchanged 
at  London  as  soon  as  possible.  It  shall  come  into  force  on  the  same  day  as 
the  general  treaty  between  the  two  contracting  parties  signed  this  day,  and 
shall  be  binding  during  ten  years  from  the  date  of  its  coming  into  force.  In 
case  neither  of  the  two  contracting  parties  shall  have  given  notice  to  the  other 
twelve  months  before  the  expiration  of  the  said  period  of  ten  years  of  its 
intention  to  terminate  the  present  treaty,  it  shall  remain  in  force  until  the 
expiration  of  one  year  from  the  date  on  which  either  of  the  two  contracting 
parties  shall  have  denounced  it. 

2  Printed  supra,  p.  38  at  p.  40. 


54 


It  is  clearly  understood  that  such  denunciation  shall  not  have  the  effect  of 
reviving  any  of  the  treaties,  conventions,  arrangements  or  agreements 
abrogated  by  former  treaties  or  agreements  or  by  Article  5  of  the  general 
treaty  signed  this  day. 

As  regards  India  or  any  of  His  Britannic  Majesty^s  self-governing  domin¬ 
ions,  colonies,  possessions  or  protectorates,  or  any  territory  in  respect  of 
which  a  mandate  on  behalf  of  the  League  of  Nations  has  been  accepted  by 
His  Britannic  Majesty  to  which  the  stipulations  of  the  present  treaty  shall 
have  been  made  applicable  under  Articles  34  and  35  either  of  the  two  con¬ 
tracting  parties  shall  have  the  right  to  terminate  it  separately  on  giving 
twelve  months^  notice  to  that  effect.  Such  notice,  however,  cannot  be  given 
so  as  to  take  effect  before  the  termination  of  the  period  of  ten  years  men¬ 
tioned  in  the  first  paragraph  of  this  article,  except  in  the  case  of  His  Britannic 
Majesty’s  self-governing  dominions  (including  territories  administered  by 
them  under  mandate)  and  the  colony  of  Southern  Rhodesia,  in  respect  of 
which  notice  of  termination  may  be  given  by  either  contracting  party  at  any 
time. 

In  witness  whereof  the  respective  plenipotentiaries  have  signed  the  present 
treaty  and  have  affixed  thereto  their  seals. 

Done  in  duplicate  in  the  English  language,  at  London,  the  14th  day  of 
July,  in  the  nineteen  hundred  and  twenty-fifth  year  of  the  Christian  era, 
corresponding  to  the  14th  day  of  the  4th  month  in  the  2468th  year  of  the 
Buddhist  era. 

(l.s.)  Austen  Chamberlain, 
(l.s.)  Prabha  Karavongs. 

notes  exchanged  between  the  united  kingdom  and  SIAM  IN  CONNECTION 

WITH  THE  GENERAL  AND  COMMERCIAL  TREATIES  BETWEEN  THE  UNITED 
KINGDOM  AND  SIAM,  SIGNED  AT  LONDON  ON  JULY  14,  1925  ^ 

London,  July  14-September  15,  1925 

No.  1. 

The  Siamese  Minister  to  Mr.  Austen  Chamberlain 

Siamese  Legation,  London,  July  H,  1925. 

Sir: 

In  signing  this  day  the  general  and  commercial  treaties  between  Great 
Britain  and  Siam,^  I  have  the  honour  to  assure  you,  by  order  of  my  gov¬ 
ernment,  that  it  is  not  the  present  intention  of  the  Royal  Siamese  Govern¬ 
ment  to  impose  any  new,  or  increase  any  existing,  export  duties  on  teak, 
tin  or  rice. 

I  have,  &c. 

Prabha  Karawongs. 

*  British  Treaty  Series  No.  9  (1926).  Cmd.  2644.  ^  ppintgjj  supra,  pp.  38  and  43. 


55 


No.  2. 

The  Siamese  Minister  to  Mr.  Austen  Chamberlain 


Siamese  Legation,  London,  July  H,  1925. 

Sm: 

I  have  the  honour  to  inform  you  that,  when  the  time  comes  for  the 
termination  of  the  existence  of  the  international  or  empowered  courts,  cases 
then  pending  before  the  said  courts  to  which  British  subjects  are  parties 
will  take  their  usual  course  before  the  said  courts  until  such  cases  have  been 
finally  disposed  of,  and  the  jurisdiction  of  the  said  courts  will  remain  in 
full  force  for  this  purpose. 

I  have,  &c. 

Prabha  Karawongs. 


No.  3. 


The  Siamese  Minister  to  Mr,  Austen  Chamberlain 


Siamese  Legation,  London,  July  H,  1925. 

Sir: 

In  connection  with  the  new  treaties  recently  signed  between  our  two 
governments,  I  have  the  honour  to  inform  you,  by  order  of  my  government, 
that,  in  order  to  protect  British  interests  with  respect  to  non-contentious 
probate  matters  under  the  regime  effected  by  the  new  treaties,  the  Royal 
Siamese  Government  will  be  happy,  after  the  ratification  of  the  new  treaties, 
to  continue  as  heretofore  the  present  system  of  consular  probate  jurisdic¬ 
tion  with  respect  to  non-contentious  matters  connected  with  estates  of  pre¬ 
registered  British  subjects  and  the  present  practice  by  which  consular 
officers  deal  with  non-contentious  matters  connected  with  estates  of  post- 
registered  British  subjects  in  accordance  with  Article  3  of  the  treaty  of  1856 
until  such  time  as  a  new  Siamese  law  shall  be  promulgated  dealing  with  the 
question  of  succession  and  probate. 

I  have  the  honour  to  inform  you  further,  that  it  is  the  intention  of  the 
Royal  Siamese  Government  to  proceed  with  the  preparation  and  promul¬ 
gation  of  the  new  law  as  soon  as  possible. 

I  have,  &c. 

Prabha  Karawongs. 


No.  4. 

Mr.  Austen  Chamberlain  to  the  Siamese  Minister 


Foreign  Office,  July  14,  1925. 

Sir: 

His  Majesty’s  Government  are  happy  to  think  that,  in  signing  the  general 
and  commercial  treaties  under  which  Siam  obtains  full  jurisdictional  and  fiscal 
autonomy,  they  have  made  some  contribution  towards  the  free  and  pros¬ 
perous  development  of  Siam.  Under  the  jurisdictional  head,  in  particular, 
they  have  agreed  to  the  arrangements  embodied  in  the  annex  to  the  general 


56 


treaty,  because  they  are  convinced  that  in  the  near  future  nothing  short  of 
full  autonomy  in  these  matters  will  be  consonant  with  the  position  of  Siam 
among  civilised  nations.  Moreover,  they  feel  sure  that  these  arrangements 
will  strengthen  the  ties  that  so  happily  unite  the  two  countries. 

2.  The  existing  ties  between  Siam  and  Great  Britain  are  mutually  advan¬ 
tageous  in  a  peculiarly  high  degree  by  reason  of  two  facts.  More  than  50,000 
Indian  British  subjects  pursue  their  avocations  in  Siam  and  contribute  to 
the  prosperity  of  the  country.  Furthermore,  British  trade  with  Siam  is 
longer  established  and  larger  in  volume  than  that  of  any  other  country. 
These  facts  give  to  Anglo-Siamese  relations  an  especially  close  and  cordial 
character  which  His  Majesty’s  Government  are  sure  that  the  Siamese  Gov¬ 
ernment  fully  appreciate  and  share  the  desire  of  His  Majesty’s  Government 
to  preserve.  His  Majesty’s  Government  therefore  feel  very  confident  that 
the  Siamese  Government  are  not  likely  to  take  any  steps  calculated  to 
prejudice  the  British  interests  arising  from  these  considerations. 

3.  His  Majesty’s  Government,  without  wishing  to  make  any  suggestion 
which  might  constitute  an  interference  in  the  internal  affairs  of  Siam,  or 
to  make  the  grant  of  the  rights  acquired  by  Siam  under  the  new  treaties 
subject  to  any  conditions  or  restrictions,  feel,  nevertheless,  in  view  of  the 
magnitude  of  the  interests  involved,  that  it  may  be  useful  to  state  frankly 
certain  apprehensions  which  they  entertain.  They  do  so  at  this  moment 
when  a  new  epoch  of  Siamese  progress  is  beginning,  with  the  object  of  avert¬ 
ing  possible  future  contingencies  in  which  Siamese  as  well  as  British  inter¬ 
ests  might  suffer.  It  is  possible  that  by  the  time  the  new  codes  have  been 
promulgated  there  will  not  be  available,  either  because  the  law  school 
established  by  the  Siamese  Government  has  not  been  fully  developed 
or  for  some  other  reason,  a  sufficient  supply  of  fully  trained  Siamese  judges 
to  take  the  places  of  the  present  European  legal  advisers.  Moreover,  in 
any  case,  the  fact  that  the  new  codes  are  based  on  Roman  law  must  somewhat 
accentuate  the  difficulties  of  dealing  with  the  large  number  of  commercial 
cases  involving  British  interests  that  come  before  the  courts.  The  Siamese 
Government  doubtless  appreciate  this  position;  and  it  therefore  occurs  to 
His  Majesty’s  Government  that  they  may  well  wish,  should  it  be  necessary 
in  order  to  avoid  possible  future  injury  to  the  interests  common  to  both 
countries,  for  a  reasonable  time  after  the  coming  into  force  of  the  various 
codes,  and  even,  if  necessary,  after  the  disappearance  of  the  right  of  evoca¬ 
tion,  to  continue  to  employ  a  reasonable  number  of  European  legal  advisers, 
of  whom  a  proportion  commensurate  with  British  interests  will  be  of  British 
nationality;  to  continue  to  employ  them  in  general  in  the  same  posts  and  in 
the  same  judicial  capacities  as  at  present,  and  to  arrange  that  they  shall 
exercise  their  powers  in  the  same  general  manner  as  they  have  hitherto  done 
(except  in  so  far  as  the  termination  of  the  1909  treaty  may  result  in  their  judg¬ 
ments  no  longer  prevailing  in  the  cases  provided  for  under  that  treaty); 
to  retain  the  post  of  judicial  adviser,  which  it  will  probably  be  impracticable 


57 


to  fill  with  a  lawyer  of  other  than  British  nationality;  and  to  employ  as  a 
teacher  in  the  law  school  an  English  lawyer,  preferably  a  barrister  familiar 
with  the  Indian  codes. 


I  have,  &c. 
No.  5. 


Austen  Chamberlain. 


The  Siamese  Minister  to  Mr.  Austen  Chamberlain 


Siamese  Legation,  London,  July  28 ^  1925. 

Sir: 

The  Royal  Siamese  Government  desire  to  express  their  very  sincere 
appreciation  for  the  frank  and  friendly  note  of  His  Britannic  Majesty’s 
Government  with  reference  to  affairs  in  Siam  under  the  new  regime.  The 
Royal  Siamese  Government  have  taken  very  careful  note  of  the  matters  set 
forth  in  this  communication,  and  they  will  endeavour,  in  respect  of  the  several 
points  set  out  in  the  letter  from  His  Britannic  Majesty’s  Government,  to 
do  everything  possible  to  safeguard  British  interests  in  Siam,  so  far  as  this 
can  be  done  without  injury  to  the  interests  of  the  Royal  Siamese  Government. 

In  particular,  the  Royal  Siamese  Government  readily  give  an  assurance 
that  it  is  their  intention  not  to  dispense  with  the  services  of  European 
legal  advisers  upon  the  ratification  of  the  new  treaties,  but  to  continue  to 
employ  them  until  such  time  after  the  promulgation  of  the  codes  as  they  may 
be  convinced  that  the  administration  of  justice  by  Siamese  judges  shows 
the  further  services  of  such  European  advisers  to  be  unnecessary. 

The  Royal  Siamese  Government  take  this  opportunity  of  reaffirming  the 
principle  as  to  the  use  of  British  law  in  commercial  cases  where  no  Siamese 
law  exists.  Until  the  promulgation  of  the  civil  and  commercial  code  they 
intend  to  continue  to  act  upon  this  principle,  which  was  expressed  in  the 
following  form  in  the  letter  of  the  19th  May,  1909,  from  Mr.  Westengard 
to  Mr.  Beckett: 


Where  there  is  no  existing  Siamese  statute  or  precedent  the  Siamese 
courts  administer  customary  law.  The  custom  in  commercial  matters 
where  there  are  foreign  communities  is  generally  in  accordance  with 
English  principles.  Therefore,  Siamese  courts  in  such  cases  are  guided 
by  English  statutes  and  cases  as  far  as  circumstances  admit. 

I  have,  &c. 

Prabha  Kara  WONGS. 


No.  6. 


Mr.  Austen  Chamberlain  to  the  Siamese  Minister 


Foreign  Office,  August  6,  1925. 

Sir: 

I  have  the  honour  to  inform  you  that  I  have  noted  with  gratification  the 
contents  of  the  three  notes  complementary  to  the  general  and  commercial 
treaties  signed  on  the  14th  ultimo  between  Siam  and  Great  Britain,  which 


58 


you  handed  to  me  on  that  date,  and  which  contain  the  following  assurances: 
(1)  That  it  is  not  the  present  intention  of  the  Siamese  Government  to  im¬ 
pose  any  new  or  increase  any  existing  export  duties  on  teak,  tin  or  rice;  (2) 
that,  when  the  time  comes  for  the  termination  of  the  existence  of  the  inter¬ 
national  or  empowered  courts  in  Siam,  cases  then  pending  before  those  courts 
to  which  British  subjects  are  parties  will  take  their  usual  course  before  the 
courts  until  such  cases  have  been  finally  disposed  of,  and  that  the  jurisdic¬ 
tion  of  those  courts  will  remain  in  full  force  for  this  purpose;  and  (3)  that 
the  Siamese  Government  agree  to  continue,  after  the  ratification  of  the 
treaties,  the  present  system  of  consular  probate  jurisdiction  with  respect  to 
non-contentious  probate  matters  until  such  time  as  a  new  Siamese  law  shall 
be  promulgated  dealing  with  the  question  of  succession  and  probate,  and 
that  it  is  their  intention  to  proceed  with  the  preparation  and  promulgation 
of  the  new  law  as  soon  as  possible. 

2.  I  have  also  the  honour  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  note  of 
the  28th  ultimo,  in  reply  to  the  note  which  I  handed  to  you  at  the  time  of 
signature  of  the  treaties,  in  which  you  inform  me  of  the  intentions  of  the 
Siamese  Government  in  regard  to  the  matters  mentioned  in  my  note,  in 
particular  the  retention  of  the  European  judicial  advisers,  and  give  an  as¬ 
surance  of  the  continued  use  of  British  law  in  commercial  cases  until  the 
promulgation  of  the  civil  and  commercial  code. 

I  have,  &c. 

Austen  Chamberlain. 


No.  7. 


The  Siamese  Minister  to  Mr.  Austen  Chamberlain 


Siamese  Legation,  London,  August  12,  1926. 

Dear  Mr.  Chamberlain, 

Sir  Sydney  Chapman,  of  the  Board  of  Trade,  has  called  my  attention 
to  the  possible  ambiguity  of  the  word  ^‘tin’^  as  used  in  my  letter  to  you  of 
the  14th  July,  1925,  concerning  export  duties  on  teak,  tin  and  rice,  and 
has  raised  the  question  of  whether  the  assurance  contained  in  this  letter 
covers  export  duties  on  tin  ore  as  well  as  on  tin  in  its  other  forms. 

I  have  pleasure  in  informing  you  that  it  is  the  understanding  of  my 
government  that  the  word  ^‘tin^’  as  used  in  this  letter  covers  both  tin  and 
tin  ore. 

Believe  me,  &c. 

Prabha  Kara  WONGS. 


No.  8. 


Mr.  Austin  Chamberlain  to  the  Siamese  Minister 


Foreign  Office,  September  16,  1926. 

My  dear  Minister, 

I  thank  you  for  your  letter  of  the  12th  ultimo  informing  me  that  it  is  the 
understanding  of  the  Siamese  Government  that  the  word  ^‘tin’^  used  in 


59 


your  note  of  the  14th  July  concerning  export  duties  on  teak,  tin  and  rice 
covers  both  tin  and  tin  ore. 

I  am  bringing  this  understanding  to  the  attention  of  Sir  Sydney  Chapman 
and  the  various  government  departments  concerned. 

Believe  me,  &c. 

Austen  Chamberlain. 

ARBITRATION  CONVENTION  BETWEEN  THE  UNITED  KINGDOM  AND  SIAM  ^ 

Signed  at  London,  November  25,  1925;  ratifications  exchanged  at  London, 

February  2,  1927. 

His  Majesty  the  King  of  the  United  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland 
and  of  the  British  Dominions  beyond  the  Seas,  Emperor  of  India,  and  His 
Majesty  the  King  of  Siam,  parties  to  the  protocol  establishing  the  Permanent 
Court  of  International  Justice,  signed  at  Geneva  on  the  16th  December, 
1920,  being  desirous  of  concluding  a  convention  with  a  view  of  referring  to 
arbitration  all  questions  which  they  may  consider  possible  to  submit  to  that 
mode  of  settlement,  have  appointed  as  their  plenipotentiaries: 

His  Majesty  the  King  of  the  United  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland 
and  of  the  British  Dominions  beyond  the  Seas,  Emperor  of  India :  The  Right 
Honourable  Joseph  Austen  Chamberlain,  a  Member  of  Parliament,  His 
Majesty’s  Principal  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs;  and 

His  Majesty  the  King  of  Siam:  Phya  Prabha  Karavongs,  His  Majesty’s 
Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  at  the  Court  of  His 
Britannic  Majesty; 

^  British  Treaty  Series  No.  7  (1927).  Cmd.  2813.  In  her  new  treaties  Siam  has  obtained 
a  noteworthy  series  of  arbitration  provisions  with  European  nations.  In  Article  II  of  the 
Franco-Siamese  treaty  of  Feb.  14,  1925,  both  parties  agree  “in  conformity  to  the  principles 
announced  in  the  Covenant  of  the  League  of  Nations  that  in  case  controversial  questions 
should  arise  between  them  in  the  future  which  cannot  be  settled  by  mutual  agreement  or 
by  the  method  of  diplomacy,  they  will  submit  the  controversy  to  one  or  more  arbitrators 
chosen  by  them,  or  in  default  of  arbitration,  to  the  Permanent  Court  of  International 
Justice.  This  court  will  obtain  jurisdiction  by  means  of  a  common  agreement  between  the 
two  parties,  or  if  agreement  cannot  be  reached,  by  the  simple  request  of  either  of  them.” 
(See  League  of  Nations  Treaty  Series,  Vol.  43,  p.  193;  Registration  No.  1055).  It  will  thus 
be  seen  that  war  is  renounced  by  both  countries  as  a  method  of  settling  disputes  of  every 
kind.  The  arbitral  provision  is  sweeping  and  compulsory.  More  or  less  similar  clauses 
were  inserted  in  most  of  the  other  European  treaties.  Great  Britain,  however,  declined  to 
enter  into  such  an  engagement;  and  the  British  arbitration  treaty,  here  printed,  follows  the 
older,  conservative  type,  with  the  loophole  of  “vital  interests,”  “independence,”  and 
“honour.”  It  is  to  be  remembered,  however,  that  in  Article  33  of  the  Treaty  of  Commerce 
and  Navigation  between  Great  Britain  and  Siam,  “the  two  contracting  parties  agree  that 
any  dispute  that  may  arise  between  them  as  to  the  proper  interpretation  or  apphcation  of 
any  of  the  provisions”  of  that  treaty  “shall,  at  the  request  of  either  party,  be  referred  to 
arbitration,  and  both  parties  undertake  to  accept  as  binding  the  arbitral  aw’ard.  The 
court  of  arbitration  to  which  disputes  shall  be  referred  shall  be  the  Permanent  Court  of 
International  Justice  at  the  Hague,  unless  in  any  particular  case  the  two  contracting  parties 
agree  otherwise.” — F.  B.  Sayre. 


60 


Who,  having  communicated  to  each  other  their  respective  full  powers, 
found  in  good  and  true  form,  have  agreed  as  follows: 

Article  1 

Differences  of  a  legal  nature  which  may  arise  between  the  two  contracting 
parties  and  which  it  may  not  have  been  possible  to  settle  by  diplomacy,  in 
the  absence  of  contrary  agreement  shall,  at  the  request  of  either  party,  be 
referred  to  the  Permanent  Court  of  International  Justice  established  by  the 
protocol  of  December  16,  1920,  in  accordance  with  the  procedure  laid  down 
in  the  statutes  of  that  court  and  in  the  rules  of  court  adopted  thereunder, 
provided,  nevertheless,  that  such  differences  do  not  affect  the  vital  interests, 
the  independence  or  the  honour  of  the  two  contracting  parties,  and  do  not 
concern  the  interests  of  third  parties.  The  contracting  parties  agree  to 
accept  the  decision  of  the  court  as  binding. 

Article  2 

The  present  convention,  which  shall  be  ratified,  is  concluded  for  a  period 
of  five  years  dating  from  the  exchange  of  ratifications,  which  shall  take 
place  at  London  as  soon  as  possible.  In  case  neither  of  the  two  contracting 
parties  shall  have  given  notice  to  the  other  twelve  months  before  the  expira¬ 
tion  of  the  said  period  of  five  years  of  its  intention  to  terminate  the  present 
convention,  it  shall  remain  in  force  until  the  expiration  of  one  year  from  the 
date  on  which  either  of  the  two  contracting  parties  shall  have  denounced  it. 

In  witness  whereof  the  respective  plenipotentiaries  have  signed  the  present 
convention  and  have  affixed  thereto  their  seals. 

Done  in  duplicate  in  the  English  language  at  London,  the  twenty-fifth 
day  of  November  in  the  nineteen  hundred  and  twenty-fifth  year  of  the 
Christian  era,  corresponding  to  the  twenty-fifth  day  of  the  eighth  month  in 
the  two  thousand  four  hundred  and  sixty-eighth  year  of  the  Buddhist  era. 

(l.s.)  Austen  Chamberlain, 
(l.s.)  Prabha  Karavongs. 


4 


•.i » ^ 

^  V  i'-,v'- ^  a  ,t!^  j^^jss,' 

:A»<*  r‘--  ‘ri'ft}'-k'^.:.’^v^y-ii 


ji 


S'.A  r  ^  -  ^  >3  5=,' .  ^  i  >-*%::.>^  V  - 

4  ^  i-^  ^  ^  i  <  ^  ^  '#3 

'-■*.  V  ^  ^  ^  3s^ 


1 

^  -iV  >■ 

•*n-^  i.  f  ,yf^ 

•  <»* 


^',4  / 


<r  -  :/V. 

"  i'K' 

rC* 


ji  ^  X-  ^  4=-  (W  ^  -TT^  — 

■"  ^  V  ^  J-  -  <s 


"'^  ^  %x.-  ^  -f  ^  -  ■■ 

»•  '*'^un.^  -l£«-  •t-  -•^*»>  ■«  44 

.  51-%.*  '  ?  ^  ~'  f  ^  ■.’>  j:  4  ':-. 

*“»  '  "  .0 

-.'fi  '""'x-"  1  ^  4L^’ 

V.  ^  i  ’“  ^  ''■^  >«- 

v*'  .  '  A  >•  •^-.  ♦•* 


->  \ 


tuP 

■*  j. 


.%.tiiv—  r.:^—~.:  " 


>. 


^  r"' 


f  ,  t  ’.r^'' 


A!C> 


^4^^^  .XX4^  -' 

^  ^  .4 1  ‘  '-  4s' 


y  ‘  y;  c 

x/.^xiixys-y' 


,  \ 


Vsu. 
f  ft  ■>■ 


